In fact, the whole film is somewhat self-contradictory: on the one hand, it provides evidence to deny the relationship between guns and murder, on the other hand, it presses on companies that sell guns. Since we know that Canada’s gun ownership rate is not lower than that of the United States and that there are far fewer murders in the United States, why force the mall to stop selling bullets? Since we also know that the real cause of the school shooting is not conclusive, why force the NRA chairman to apologize to a girl of the same age who died at the gun of a 6-year-old boy? In addition, why does the film repeatedly emphasize that Americans are much more likely to kill each other than other countries, but on the other hand, they claim that these are all selective reports by the media?
We know that Moore was born in the grassroots, so we have always been concerned about poverty in the United States. This film also involves the unemployment rate, the welfare system, and single-parent families, but at the same time, it puts forward the example of Canada and vetoes the possibility that these factors lead to high murder rates. I personally feel that this section deviates from the main line and seems to be free. In fact, the only factor Moore does not deny is the conspiracy theory he has always been good at: the US government tries to strengthen control by keeping people in fear, so that people forget other problems in this country. This was further explained in Fahrenheit 9/11, and at the end of the film, the classic remarks from Orwell's "1984" were quoted for a showdown. But in this film, this is only a suspicion, and there is not enough evidence to support it. In addition, a considerable part of the space was given to commercial media, accusing them of unscrupulously creating an atmosphere of horror and blood in order to attract attention; but Moore did not discuss who the media and the audience are in the dominant position and who is the affected person in this relationship. .
In fact, Bowling for columbine took the Columbine campus shooting as the starting point and the center, and explored several reasons for similar tragedies. However, due to too many aspects involved, the clues are too complicated, and all discussions are full of contradictory evidence, leading to the whole Although the film has the effect of introspection, it is also confusing at the same time. Obviously, the director himself is trying hard to find a position, so some of his interviews and action plans have serious biases; but unfortunately, I did not see where he finally got a foothold. Not only did the discussion on the reasons for the shooting have no results, but even the judgment of whether the crime rate in the United States is high or low, and whether it is safe to live in the United States, is also repeatedly swayed in the film.
Perhaps the only certainty in the whole film is what the last sentence shows: America is a society full of panic and mistrust between people. But even I can’t accept this conclusion—even though I’m in Miami, one of the most insecure cities in the minds of Americans (and Chinese). As far as the Americans I know are not as full of panic and hostility as the film, in fact, although there have been cases of theft and robbery on campus, most of the dormitories still do not lock the doors.
One of Michael Moore's magic weapons is: when interviewing certain people (mainly the people he wants to step on) ask some very weird questions, record their reactions, and edit them in a satirical position before putting them into the movie. In many cases, the tone of his interviews was friendly or even humble, but in fact the sentences contained sarcasm and wit, which gave people a feeling of being provoked. At this time, most people will have some unconscious behaviors and remarks that are subconsciously protesting or resisting, so it is in Mo's arms. For example, Chalton Heston, the chairman of the NRA, has actually been quite sincere in his attitude. As a result, Mohs actually took out the picture of the little girl and asked him to apologize. He stood at the highest point of morality and looked at each other from the eyes of a judge. In fact, since this is an inconclusive issue, there is no need to make yourself like the incarnation of justice, so that everyone in the other party will feel embarrassed. Heston was restrained enough and didn't shoot him out.
Of course, we all know that such interviews are good-looking, and such documentaries can win prizes; if Heston is really angry, I am afraid Moore will be even happier. In many cases, what he did seems to be full of humane care, but in fact it is to make the film more dramatic and attract the attention of the audience and judges. Otherwise, why bother to ask questions that everyone knows the answer to, why bother to do things that everyone knows are wasted effort. Everyone is doing their job well, and Michael Moore's job is to ideologically pick the faults of other hard-working people.
In fact, it's hard to tell who is wrong. What we can see is that, at least in the United States, there are directors like Moore and films like Fahrenheit 911 and bowling for comunbine; moreover, they can not only be released, but they can also win awards. Therefore, even though many people are disappointed in the United States after watching the Mohs series of documentaries, I can still like this land even more because of them.
View more about Bowling for Columbine reviews
