Went to go see Bowling for Columbine last night. I had to laugh. In a theater full of French people, everybody was watching a documentary that took place, for the most part, in Michigan. I recognized the news reporters, the accents, the Michigan Militia, the landscape, the names of cities, etc., etc. However, I am pretty sure that those around me did not. I couldn't help but wonder how my reaction to the film must have been different than theirs. It was, in some ways, too bad that the portrait of Americans, and of Michigan for that matter, had to be so horrific. I suppose Mr. Moore had to do so in order to get his point across. I just hate to picture the conversations going around the Parisian cafe tables following the film, and I hope that Americans weren't all pinned as being robbing, theiving, gun-crazy, racist, terrified, power-hungry, uneducated fools obsessed with violence.
I read in a review of the film that Moore's basic statement is that America is the best and most wonderful country in the world, but it is riddled with problems (gun control was just the most-discussed among many). But in all honesty, America comes off simply as riddled with problems, and Canada takes the honorary seat as best and most wonderful country in the world.
I also would like to know what the NRA/gun-toters/gun-toting sympathizers have to say about the film. Maybe American readers living in the US could comment on that. French journalists have not really given equal weight to both sides of the same story, and it would be interesting to hear the how the side France has silenced reacted.
At any rate, excellent film. Every American should be required to see it. If I were an American Government high school teacher, I would show it in my class.
I might just have to go see it again.
So. Saw Columbine tonight. And it's almost midnight and I have to go to work tomorrow (and *that* is a whole separate story that I shall have to email you under separate cover; suffice it to say I'm a bonehead and should not be allowed to operate a computer) but damn. I can't stop thinking about the movie.
I thought the most interesting thing about the movie is that it didn't really answer any questions--or rather, didn't say, "Here's how to fix things. Do X, don't do Y, and you'll get Z." There's no clear-cut tagline marketable *cause* of our national murder rate.
Clearly it's not just the proliferation of guns that's caused the problems; Canada has a really high gun-per-capita and they don't have the murder rate there that we have here.
It's not our "violent past"; Germany, Britain and Japan are three very large and crowded countries that have as bloody if not bloodier pasts.
It's not "violent entertainment"; everyone gets the same movies, the same video games, the same music.
It's not a breakdown of "family values"; Britain has a higher single-parent family rate than the US.
It's not lack of prayer in schools; it's not alienation; I know he makes us seem racist, but you can't tell me there's no racism in France, and I know there racism is in England, and I know there is in Japan, and I know there is in Australia. Hell, the Australians practically committed genocide on the Aborigines in *this* century, but last year there were 65 deaths from guns.
All these tag-line poster children for blame can't singly, or even doubly, be the cause of the US's obscenely high murder rate.
Are we that different from everyone else? Is it in the water?
But can I tell you something about the movie that bothered me? I mean, really bothered me?
To some extent, I feel like what Michael Moore did with those Columbine victims wasn't that much different from what Charlton Heston did in Denver ten days after the shootings. He used those kids as pawns to make his own point.
Okay, it was a little different--I mean, Michael Moore did it with the kids' permission, for one thing. Say what you like about the comparable worthiness of the cause (and remember, I'm on his side of it, if we have to play Red Rover Red Rover about it), but he did have their permission, whereas the NRA didn't. (Plus, damn, was I impressed that KMart responded the way they did--some PR person had better have gotten a raise out of that, because clearly that is the RIGHT way to respond to media pressure. Yes, it would have been more impressive if it hadn't taken the media pressure, but still.)
But to some extent, I felt a little dirty about it. Like the victory, and the point he was trying to make, was a little tainted by sensationalism and the same heavy-handed brandishing of circumstance.
There are lots of thoughts swirling in my head about the whole thing. That's just one that slips out at 12:01 a.m. Central Standard Time.
(Oh and another thought that's slipping out: this is just going to give Europeans one more chance to talk about how fucked up Americans are, and how tired am I of that old refrain?)
Excellent commentary, Kari. I think your final thought was amongst my most pronounced. I just spoke to a friend of mine about the film this morning. He also disliked the Kmart scene. I have mixed feelings about it. Something is clearly wrong with selling tons of bullets to sixteen-year-olds. And I think that the two kids Moore took with him to confront Kmart will wear their participation in the film like badges of courage. To call them both "pawns" is to belittle their own personal interest in going. Didn't it seem like Mark(?) was really into it? After all, it was his idea to go to Kmart and buy all the bullets. At any rate, like you said, damn. Way to go Kmart. But I disagree with you in your opinion that bringing the media made it less tasty and delicious. One of Moore's (many) arguments is that the media might be somewhat at the root of the American obsession with violence, and he gave the statistics proving that the media tend to exagerate or give more news time to violent events (which, I don't remember him directly saying, but is obviously done for ratings). Perhaps he is trying to show that the media can also be used to educate and reform? Moore not only used the media for a good cause, he also demonstrated a positive use of the media within the community: making people aware of current events, WITHOUT necessarily requiring those events to be centered around murder, beatings, gangs, etc. If what he wants is change, at least he showed in his film that another is possible.
I still want to go see the movie again. My head was spinning after seeing it the first time. Now that I have reflected a bit, I would like to reconsider my opinion, and perhaps watch the film in a state other than one of total shock. I also think I would enjoy seeing it alone.
I also sobbed like a little baby during the Columbine footage.