Okay, as my fans will know, I’m not a great admirer of Moore’s recent canon, though I would like to watch Roger and Me.
I get his sarcasm (or what some people call his irony) and being British seems to be about as great an obstacle in understanding his films (and books) as being American is an obstacle to understanding Blackadder.
I also had no difficulty understanding either where he was coming from or where he wanted to take the audience with respect to Fahrenheit 9/11 and Stupid White Men.
But I don’t get his purpose in making Bowling for Columbine. Can anyone help me out? And I wish to read your comments - in case you think I should just read what Moore has to say about it - because the opinion of the audience is at least as important as the opinion of the film-maker.
I’ve put my question here, rather than in GD or the inferno, because I’d like to generate informed discussion from film people, and don’t want it to become a debate about gun control.
I’ve never before heard any complaints that he doesn’t translate across the pond - if anything, the opposite.
Anyway, what I took to be the message was: America has a big problem with violence, in particular gun crime. However, its not simply caused by easy access to guns. An integral element is the climate of fear which has long been present in American politics, but is now vastly inflated by a media who use it as a simple ratings-grabbing tool.
To me the question he was exploring was: given similar levels of guns ownership (as he discovered part way through), why do Americans shoot each other at roughly 5 times the rate that Canadians do?
I think GorillaMan nailed it. BfC has been characterized as an anti-gun movie, but I don’t think that’s accurate at all. I don’t think Moore is opposed to guns, he’s opposed to the media’s culture of fear that makes gun violence a bigger problem than it naturally would be.
I echo the sentiments of GorillaMan and Fiver, although I think Fiver’s description of American’s gun violence problem as a subset of a “culture of fear” is more accurate than calling it a mere “climate of fear.” Tellingly, one of the people Moore interviews in the movie is author Barry Glasser, whose book *“The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of The Wrong Things” * talks openly about fearmongering as the fuel of America’s fear driven economy, and the reason local news peddles fear in different forms is simply to drive up ratings. (“Can Columbine happen right here in our town? Find out at six and eleven!”) Hell, even Marilyn Manson talks about it.
I disagree that the media drives the culture of fear-- irrational fears of black men in America certainly predates “the media’s” co-opting that idea and is an intergal part of the climate of fear-- but the media’s “if it bleeds, it leads” attitude certainly helps perpetuate it.
The two more eye-opening segments of the film (for me) were the ones with Michael Moore barging in the unlocked front doors of Canadian homes and the snippet of a Canadian local news show— straight news and refreshingly unsensationalistic.
What was Moore’s purpose in interviewing the backwoods fellow, the brother of Terry Nichols. Now, Moore was giving him international media attention, but was this meant to be in any way ironic, as an instance of media glorification of irresponsible gunonwers/terrorists?
I had similar queries about the scenes where Moore joined a group of people (in Michigan) on a shoot. Was he identifying with them, as fellow citizens with constitutional rights, or was he mocking them for their hick ways?
If the latter, how to square that with Moore’s own self-identification with ordinary, working class gunowners. (Moore made a point of mentioning how he was a member of the NRA and had won trophies for shooting when younger in Flint.)
And also, if the latter, don’t the words spoken by one of these men represent what Moore himself (and many posters here incidentally) believes? I wrote down these words at the time, annoying my wife as I used the remote to go back and forward. Here they are:
Wasn’t it an example of media sensationalising to have this “militia-man” in a misty field say just what Moore would himself believe, assent to and support as a constitutional right?
I always wondered if it was really true that Americans would have their doors locked on a Saturday afternoon while they were at home, in the summertime. What do they do, take a key to the backyard with them? Not to bring up an old ghost, but I always thought that was weird.
The unlocked doors thing was kind of silly, really. Lots of Americans leave doors unlocked when they’re home, and lots of Canadians lock their doors. I am Canadaian born and raised, have never had my house broken into, and I usually lock my door when I’m home.
That said, the bit about news shows is true. I made a comment awhile back, which spawned a thread started by another poster (whose name I do not recall) that Americans are over-governed by fear; I maintain it’s true. Ironically I’m in the states right now, on business, and I was thinking just a few hours ago about how weird the local news programs are - every story seems to be about how your children are going to die.
Weird, but true. I do it all the time. I know many people who do the same things… it’s much more the norm than the exception, despite what you see on American TV sitcoms, with neighbors barging in and out of each other’s unlocked living spaces all the time. I live in a working class neighborhood on a busy thoroughfare and I can’t trust the people around here. I’ve had my bikes robbed twice, my apartment burglarized once, all in the last seven months. So even though I don’t have air conditioning – heck, yeah. My doors be locked…!
… now, if you change my living conditions I change, too. When I was much younger, I lived in a house two miles down a winding dirt road in the middle of 400 acres of largely undeveloped land just outside metropolitan Atlanta, I couldn’t be bothered to lock my doors, close the windows or even put up curtains. THERE WAS NOBODY AROUND. Yet sometimes, my father insisted on locked doors and closed windows, even while we were at home. Crazy.
I thought that it only made sense in the wider conclusions of the film - that America’s culture of fear helps to breed paranoia on that level.
Correction - is a member of the NRA. I thought it was part self-deprecation, mocking the stereotype of gun-toting huntsman which for many people is conjoured up by the NRA. Partly it was again demonstrating the pervasive fear, fear of an unspecified and unidentified danger.
:rolleyes: He was having fun messing you about. He never attempted to show a connection, just mentioned a piece of synchronity. It was your mind that picked it up and ran with it. (Sure, it’s not exactly responsible filmmaking, but it made *me *laugh.)
The thing with the locked doors is that he was comparing Detroit, an American city that is known for high crime levels and the Canadian city that is just across the lake that my mind is completly blanking on. He was looking at them and comparing these two places. Kind of like Darwin and the Galapados Islands. Very close together but little differences.
This also is where he noticed that the Canadian News is much different from the American News. He also went to South Central LA, another ‘high crime area’ and the neighborhood was quiet and peaceful. Not the sterotype that you see on the news. He pointed out that America isn’t as bad as the news makes it out to be. I just think he was a little chicken to start trying to walk into houses in South Central but it would have been interesting to see if he could.
I think you’re refering to his interviews of the Michigan Militia folks, right? He was definitely trying to show up the paranoid, scary-crazy aspect of their worldview, in contrast to the majority of gun-owning sport hunters in Michigan. It ties in with the rest of the movie - look what happens when you let hype and misinformation drive your actions.
He observed that the KKK was effectively outlawed in 1871. The NRA was founded in 1871. He made no connection other than observing these dates. You’re the one being inaccurate by saying that he did. And you’re missing the whole point, which ties in with the film in general - the KKK was a result of fear, fear of the unknown, fear of the unfamiliar.
