Bowling for Columbine

I know I’m only a year late, here, but I just recently saw Bowling for Columbine for the first time, about a week ago.

It completely and utterly defied my expectations.

Disclaimer #1: Yes, I’m aware of the many factual errors, exaggerations, and sheer propaganda in this film

Disclamer #2: I am not pro-gun control.

Nonetheless, I enjoyed this film.

My expectations going into the movie were of a pro-gun control propaganda piece. This is the impression I have gotten from many (usually conservative, particularly libertarian, and almost always pro-gun control) people that have skewered this movie as “pure fiction”. I wonder if these people watched the same movie I did.

In my ever so humble opinion, Michael Moore’s entire point in making this film was specifically that gun control was not the answer. The real question that Michael Moore asks is not “why don’t we ban guns?” It is “what are we so afraid of?” This is why he focuses on Canada, which has comparable amounts of guns, and yet, has much less a problem with gun murders.

The movie in many ways parallels the work of Barry Glassner in “Culture of Fear”. In fact, he interviews him in the movie. “Culture of Fear” addresses the fear that grips our nation. The media-fueled frenzy that introduces a new fear du jour: west nile, SARS, african bees, Y2K, crime, and yes, terrorism. Fearmongering is a useful tool of manipulation that can yield tidy profits – just ask the duct tape industry. Just ask Dick Cheney.

Michael Moore is a world class provocateur. He’s obnoxious, he’s funny, and he exaggerates. His movie is a masterfully (and sometimes deviously) crafted piece of propaganda. However, that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. He doesn’t want to take away your constitutional rights. Michael Moore wants us to address the real source of our problems instead of the fear du jour. He wants us to stop being afraid, and to stop killing eachother, and this movie is a first step to addressing this problem.

This movie has a message that everyone should pay heed to, whether or not you are pro-gun control.


Comments

Glenn PetersSeptember 02, 2003 at 20:44 · reply

Just wait until the Africanized SARS.

WHich version did you see? Supposedly the DVD release has been edited quite severely since Moore was caught doctoring footage.

It was the DVD. I never got around to seeing it in the theatre..

Adam GrovesSeptember 03, 2003 at 21:37 · reply

Chris,

You might be interested in this commentary.

The thesis of Culture of Fear supports the notion that gun violence reports in the media are inflated compared to what they really are.

Isn’t that the anti-thesis of BFC? It’s major point being that the US has far more gun problems than anywhere else in the world?

Interesting commentary, and I can’t say I disagree with it entirely, but..

I think I would say three things:

1) The idea that the media exaggerates things, including gun violence, to promulgate fear is not necessarily mutually exclusive to the idea that gun violence is still a big problem. For example: The media airs a news story on a horrific botched burglary resulting in a gun murder. They follow-up with a story on “safety tips” to secure your home and protect your family. They use lots of closeups of shadowy “dark” (ahem) figures punching through windows interspersed with pictures of a mural and a baby’s crib. “Re-enacted” footage designed to evoke a very emotional response: the things you hold dear could be threatened as well! Well, shit! I better lock my doors, order that security system, and buy a .45 and sleep with a baseball bat under my pillow, right? Wrong. I know the chances of me being robbed and shot are statistically low enough that I’m okay with the risk. (As should most level-headed people, depending on where they live. Citizens of Iraq notwithstanding.) It’s the fear and hysteria they generate, especially in the face of downward trends, that is the problem.

2) Downward trends do not eliminate a problem. From what I understand, relatively speaking, a decrease in the number of incidents of gun-related violence in this country is just a drop in the bucket. We probably still have a very large problem, compared to other countries. The disclaimer is that I don’t have any numbers to back this up, but it’s what I suspect.

3) I agree with their analysis that Michael Moore’s sensationalism and propagandizing are contradictory to the point of Glassner’s book. It’s interesting, and it makes me think about why Moore made the film and what I took from it. I think the Culture of Fear aspect of the movie was its most valuable. I think he chose the issue of gun control as a means to make this broader point. I think maybe he chose poorly. Maybe he should have just made Culture of Fear: The Movie, and I would be happier. Maybe I’m just trying to mold his somewhat misguided film to be what I wish it was.

I saw the movie in the theater and on dvd and didn’t notice any differences between the two versions.

It cracks me up that essentially Moore’s message is “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and there is STILL all this hooplah. I think people that critize either A. didn’t even see the film or B. went in so prepared to disagree with everything that they completely missed that this wasn’t an anti-gun statement. All they saw was Moore going to Kmart and wanting the store to get rid of its hand gun ammunition. This of course means Moore wants to piss on the Constitution or whatever it is that pro-gun control people do.

As Chris said, I can kind of understand this reaction. Moore is a provocateur. He usually presents only half the story. He’s rude, he’s patronizing, he’s all the things a good entertainer should be. I wouldn’t go into a documentary directed by Bill O’Reilly with an open mind either. Yet, if Bill O’Reilly was making this arguement, I’d probably have to conceed he was onto something….

All Moore is saying: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people and hey, how about we ACTUALLY EXPLORE WHY PEOPLE KILL EACH OTHER?

KathleenApril 19, 2004 at 21:03 · reply

Ona side note to this discussion is “Fearmongering” a word? Because I’m almost positive it isn’t.

*Main Entry: 1mon·ger Pronunciation: ‘m&[ng]-g&r, ‘mä[ng]- Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mongere, from Old English mangere, from Latin mangon-, mango, of Greek origin; akin to Greek manganon charm, philter 1 : BROKER, DEALER – usually used in combination 2 : a person who attempts to stir up or spread something that is usually petty or discreditable -- usually used in combination *

and the transitive verb form:

*Main Entry: 2monger
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): mon·gered; mon·ger·ing /-g(&-)ri[ng]/
PEDDLE*

I believe it’s an acceptable construction.

Is going to m-w.com and typing in a word really considered too much research when you’re making a snarky comment on someone’s blog?

KathleenApril 20, 2004 at 19:58 · reply

Amanda- If you were referring to my comment, I only asked because I am writing a term paper dealing with what the main point Michael Moore is trying to make in the movie “BFC” which is discussed in this message board, and I wanted to know if fearmongering would be a proper term for me to use as part of my thesis. It was not the least bit “snarky”- get a life.

When I want to know if a word exists, I also start my search on random blogs. Dictionaries are so passe!

KathleenApril 21, 2004 at 15:47 · reply

Jesus lady why do you care so much? It’s kind of sad. You really don’t know what you’re talking about and to me you just sound immature, pathetic, and desperate to make a point and I just don’t care.

Thanks! Your comment has been submitted and will appear shortly.


Leave a comment