 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
| Bowling
for Columbine
Directed By: Michael
Moore Plot
Summary - Review 1 - Review
2 - CURRENT REVIEWS
|
|
| One doesn't exist. The summary of the movie is an exFrom the writer that brought us "Stupid White Men" comes a movie continuing to build his empire. [TRAILER] What is the purpose of a documentary? Or, maybe a better question is: What is the purpose of cinema? Is it to entertain? Educate? Encourage debate? Enlighten an audience to new and different points of view? Promote positive social change? "Bowling For Columbine," the new, provocative documentary by renegade Michael Moore ("Roger and Me") does all of this and more. It is a film that will have people walking out halfway through, will encourage others to stand up and applaud, and will, undoubtedly, leave both camps engaged in a ferocious debate for years to come. It is an anti-gun movie for sure, but not in a shallow sense. I consider myself in agreement with the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and this is not a film with an arrogance to tell me that I am wrong. Rather, it is intrigued as to why guns are used so destructively by our society. Yes, guns are evil, Moore would likely say, but what caused two children to take these instruments of destruction and unleash them on a school full of their peers? Moore's earlier smash hit, "Roger and Me," is about the closing of a General Motors plant in his hometown of Flint, Michigan, that he claims led to the city's implosion. In that instance, Moore's biases were a bit more obvious, and surely a bit shallower. The plant closed, the company was evil, and each interview he did found a new way to deliver the same message. "Bowling For Columbine" goes far deeper than the simple notion that this shooting was a tragedy and that guns caused it. Moore sees two primary avenues to discuss: Why are gun advocates unaffected by such national tragedies, and what caused our culture to reach the point where people would act in such a fashion? The answers are not easy, and Moore does not pretend to solve the problem in this two-hour feature. Instead, he first examines why people love guns. Yes, he selects the nutcases that, many may argue, are the worst examples of the pro-gun community. There is the bank that distributes guns to people opening new accounts. There is the city that made it mandatory for every citizen to own a gun. There are several shots of Charlton Heston, NRA president, holding a rifle above his head and proclaiming "Out of my cold, dead hand." Moore then goes past guns to look at our culture versus those of other countries. In Germany, France and Canada, where there are also violent video games, a wealth of guns, and angry people, the per-capita death rate is only a small percentage of what it is in the United States. So what is different here? Moore interviews a professor and looks at how the U.S. has become a culture of fear. Even as homicides decline, the media sends the message of a far more dangerous society. After the Columbine tragedy, this fear spiraled into paranoia at schools across the country. He looks at the welfare state, and how poverty divides people and communities, fostering a nation of lost children. He also looks at what people claimed were the sources for the shooter's anger. Marilyn Manson, an alternative musician who received scathing rebuke following Columbine, is asked what he would do if the kids from Columbine could hear him. His answer? Nothing. He would do what no one else had done, and listen. In the film's most powerful moment, Moore takes two Columbine victims to the K-Mart headquarters to return the K-Mart bullets that are lodged in their bodies. Only a day later, a K-Mart Vice President announces that the chain will phase out ammunition sales within ninety days. Moore is speechless. "Bowling For Columbine" encourage the most discussion I have ever seen following a movie. Unlike most documentaries about the past, it is distinctly about today's problems and today's society. Perhaps this is why some were so affected and left the theater early. I felt it ran a bit long myself, venturing into military and government issues that served as distractions to Moore's stronger point about societal violence. But this is filmmaking at its most provocative. It makes us laugh, but asks the tough questions. It takes a problem most want to avoid and dives in, searing for answers. It entertains and challenges. It also educates. One hour before President Bill Clinton announced the Columbine shootings, he announced a new, intense campaign of U.S. bombings on Kosovo. Moore, in a cursory summary of "Bowling for Columbine," wonders if the two announcements aren't more related than most would like to admit.  
Check out Reviews, Commentary, and More at Zertinet.com |
LINKS
TO REVIEWS |
|
I took forever
to write this review. I was very conflicted about what I should say about
Bowling for Columbine. I wasn’t really sure how to criticize the movie
without attacking Moore’s beliefs. Of course perhaps that’s
the problem with the movie. I originally walked out of the movie half disgusted
and half intrigued. If this had been a political rally I would have been
pleased – but this was supposed to be a movie and a documentary. I
was supposed to accept this as art. I can’t accept this movie as either
art or a documentary. It is neither. I really decided what I wanted to write in this review after watching In the Bedroom. In the bedroom is one of best pieces of artwork I’ve seen in a while. Things are not spelled out for you. Never does Fields believe that his audience will respond to pointless sentiment, sensationalism, or a voice over that explains it all. He lets the images and art of the film talk for itself. He never comes out and asks “Was what this couple did right?” He doesn’t need to. That is what bothers me so much about Bowling for Columbine: gut wrenching sensationalized scenes with an all too obvious point, voice-overs that have more meaning than the movie itself, and a director who won’t respect his audiences’ intelligence. Moore also needs to follow some of his own advice. He comes to the conclusion at the end of the movie that our screwed up obsession with guns is all about this sensationalized fear. Yet most of the scenes in the movie could easily be segments on 20/20 or 60 Minutes 2. There used to be a time when the line between a politician and an artist was clear. Artists used fiction, story, imagery, sounds, and touch to get across a message; politicians used facts and concrete plans. That line today has disappeared. Our politicians use emotion, fear, fiction and anything else they can come up with to win a victory for their particular agenda. So called artists have lost the ability to let art stand on its own. They create a painting and then rely on a several page explanation of it in order to get the point across. Movies today are replete with voice-overs so we know we’re thinking the right thing. I agree with most of Moore’s conclusions and ideas. He would make an excellent politician if he wasn’t allowed to write books or direct movies. He has some excellent observations about society in genera. I’m disappointed that the idea for this movie was wasted in the way it was. It could have been a great film. I suggest as comparison to watch Bowling for Columbine and then go out and rent In the Bedroom. The difference will only be too clear.
|
|
| Movies
@ Zertinet | Oscars @ Zertinet
| Main Site Best Viewed
at 800 X 600 or greater |
|
