America’s obsession with guns and violence is explored with a unique mixture of humor, tragedy and irony in Bowling for Columbine writer and filmmaker Michael Moore’s latest film. Moore’s earlier works Roger & Me (1989) and The Big One (1998) focused on corporate greed and its devastating effect on the working class. Bowling for Columbine is even more ambitious as it attempts to answer a more general and surprisingly difficult question: why is American culture so violent? Along the way, Moore makes many insightful and quite provocative suggestions about the connection between violence and American social policy. Bowling for Columbine is a serious work of cultural criticism that should delight or enrage just about everyone.
If Moore pokes fun at American culture, one has to admit it’s an easy target. Only in America would a bank offer a free gun with each new savings account, a blind man be given a gun license, a barbershop sell live ammunition and the nation’s leading gun rights lobby hold a rally not far from Columbine just weeks after the shooting. Only in America would a town pass a law requiring every adult member of the town to own a gun. Of course, there’s plenty of tragedy as well. One of my favorite examples is the story of the 6-year-old boy who shot a classmate at school a few years ago in Moore’s hometown of Flint, Mich. The fatal shooting of a 6-year-old girl is tragedy enough, but when one learns that, as part of a welfare-to-work program, the boy’s mother worked 70 hours a week but was unable to afford rent, let alone supervise her child, the tragedy becomes an outrage. And when the public’s response is to blame either the mother or the boy, outrage gives way to unbridled fury: how could anyone be so ignorant as to offer such a simplistic, knee-jerk solution to a vastly complex social problem? Granted, we should not allow anecdotes or emotions to determine social policy. But given the popularity and one-sided portrayal of welfare-to-work programs, Bowling for Columbine makes a strong case for a reexamination of this issue.
The most interesting scene in the film is the climactic interview with Charlton Heston, president of the National Rifle Association. Moore himself conducts the interview at Heston’s high-security Hollywood home. What takes place during this interview should amaze you. Anyone who thinks that Moore’s criticism of the NRA is one-sided should pay careful attention to this interview. No one can say that the NRA were not given a chance to defend themselves, nor is it fair to say that Moore is a bully, poking fun at the little guy. On the contrary, Moore is, and always has been, a staunch defender of working class Americans against powerful, greedy corporate and political interests. His willingness personally to confront and challenge some of the most powerful figures in America is testimony to his extraordinary courage.
Despite its many virtues, Bowling for Columbine is not without its faults. My main complaint is that it is too ambitious, and as a result, it does not make as persuasive a case as it might have done. For example, Moore rightly points out that neither the sheer number of guns nor violent forms of entertainment is the cause of violence in America, since Canada, a much more peaceful nation, has the same violent programs and almost as many guns per capita as we do. And when a New York resident claims that poverty is one of the main causes of violence in America, Moore responds by appealing to Canada’s high unemployment rate as evidence of the falsity of this claim. Yet clearly poverty has something to do with gun violence, as the story of the 6-year-old girl’s death suggests. Moreover, he seems to dismiss the suggestion that violence in the media contributes to greater violence a bit too quickly. And some of the more provocative suggestions about political or corporate conspiracies seem rather far-fetched, or at least unproven. In my view, the film would have worked better as a full-scale examination of the NRA, for instance. Some of the more speculative hypotheses weaken the overall argument. On the other hand, even the more speculative hypotheses are not implausible.
Despite its flaws, Bowling for Columbine remains a remarkable achievement, especially given the current climate, in which serious political and cultural debate is discouraged in favor of an uncritical, rally-around-the-flag mentality. Since its screening at the Cannes Film Festival in April, it has made a huge critical and box-office impact, at least for a film of its kind. It won a special prize at Cannes, and many critics consider it to be Moore’s greatest film (I prefer Roger & Me). Despite its somewhat gloomy message, the film offers some reason for hope. There is nothing inevitable about the gun culture, nor must we always suffer from incompetent politicians, corrupt celebrities, a cynical media and an ignorant, apathetic public. I urge all patriotic Americans to see this film.
