Viewed in
2011
Formats
TV
Premise
A documentary by Michael Moore about the Columbine shootings and guns in American society.
Liked
The vast topics that he covers.
Thoughts
I have a queasy stomach, so it was really hard for me to watch raw footage of the shootings, and an assortment of graphic gun violence caught on tape.
Moore basically did a good job of letting the story tell itself. He pulled some stunts, such as the uncomfortable confrontation with Charlton Heston, but the message came across clearly. I liked that we got to see a personal side of him, as his home state of Michigan was a part of the tragedies he talked about.
Another thing I enjoyed was how he kept trying to ties things up to the big picture. The film gave numerous history lessons, with topics about media tactics, civilian prejudice, and America's foreign policy that might not seem related to Columbine on paper. These moments were definitely educational, and helped me keep things in perspective and open-minded.
Obviously, an agenda-ed documentary like this needed stats to support its argument. But the stat for number of people killed by guns per country was a bit unfair. Not surprisingly, the figures for the United States was staggeringly large, but in the back of my mind, I wondered if the gap between us and other countries would be less had it been converted to a population percentage.
It was interesting that Columbine is not as prominent of a subject as the title suggested. In context of the film, that probably was a good idea. After all, it had been covered ad nauseum. An exploration into why Americans tend to shoot each other more often than other developed countries was definitely more worthwhile than retracing two troubled teenagers and the people they hurt.
Overall, Bowling for Columbine was a pretty intelligent film. Moore's presence was not annoying, and I learned some good points of views about the subject. He did not simplistically bash the Second Amendment, but just questioned its role in modern society. As an essay, it could have been tighter, but I liked all the different angles that he explored, showing a nuanced discussion about such a polarizing topic.
What I would change
Omitted explicit footage of gun violence.
