An astonishingly funny animation piece called “A Brief History of the United States of America.” Written by Moore and produced by Harold Moss for the film, it looks very much like a South Park piece (in fact, Matt Stone, South Park‘s co-creator, and a Columbine alum, is interviewed in the film). Here Moore’s stance is clear; he argues that The United States of America is founded and based on fear of people not like us (Caucasians). Yes, his main argument is about racism.
I LOVE MY GUN
by James Snapko
What happened to us? What have we become? Why is there such a high level of violence in our culture? These are some of the questions Michael Moore asks in his new film Bowling For Columbine, the cinematic equivalent of a dissertation on pop culture and American Studies; it’s a film that asks a host of difficult questions regarding violence and fear in the United States, and offers a multitude of startling explanations.
As the title suggests, the April 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado is Moore’s glaring example that things have gone overboard. But this film isn’t just about why Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot and killed 13 people at their high school; it explores the underpinnings of violence and fear in the media, in politics, in corporate America, and in the history of the United States. Moore claims Columbine is the result of a greater and more pernicious set of systemic social diseases related to America’s inordinate level of murders and violent acts as a result of guns.
To distill Moore’s thesis is not easy. He’s bringing a lot to the table, and in a similar way as in his 1989 film Roger & Me.His “shotgun” approach to his subject practically overwhelms the audience with the amount of material he has to justify his claims. One section of this film probably comes the closest to summing up his angle on all of this: an astonishingly funny animation piece called “A Brief History of the United States of America.” Written by Moore and produced by Harold Moss for the film, it looks very much like a South Park piece (in fact, Matt Stone, South Park‘s co-creator, and a Columbine alum, is interviewed in the film). Here Moore’s stance is clear; he argues that The United States of America is founded and based on fear of people not like us (Caucasians). Yes, his main argument is about racism. The U.S. began with the genocide of the indigenous people (Native Americans) caused by the “fear of the other” syndrome, a syndrome that lasts to this day. Spanning 500 years, the animation chronicles this fear and loathing through the Revolutionary War, the Salem witch hunts, the Civil War, slavery, the KKK, the founding of the NRA, The Civil Rights movement, and the “white flight” to the suburbs. All of this is covered in a 3-minute segment that has to be seen to be believed.
So, how is racism perpetuated and sustained over time? One of Moore’s main targets is the media – specifically TV news and prime time programming. He claims the American public is being spoon-fed a constant barrage of racist attitudes in the form of “credible” journalism. “If it bleeds, it leads,” is the nonsensical mantra that is used to describe news stations’ attitude toward television programming. And the advertisers pay big money to promote themselves during these shows. In a poignant interview, shock rocker Marilyn Manson offers some of the most valid criticisms of advertising and corporate capitalism in the film. Advertising engenders fear in the viewer (if you don’t buy this car you won’t be considered important, etc.), and we are thereby urged, both consciously and subconsciously to be good little consumers. 
In addition, Moore interviews the executive producer of the schlocky reality TV series Cops, and in that interview, it all comes down to one disturbing fact: fear sells. Moore is suggesting an overarching influence of corporate hegemony: corporations control the news; these shows are in existence to make money; therefore the programming is reduced to a collage of violent, fear-inducing images and stories, padded with high-octane fear-inducing advertisements for the purpose of making more money.
It is this mélange of elements, claims Bowling for Columbine, that drives people, particularly white people, to buy a quarter of a billion guns in this country. He offers alarming statistics on the ratio of murders as a result of guns in America, contrasting the high U.S. average (11,127 per year) to other “First World” countries such as Germany (381), France (255), Canada (165), the UK (68), and Japan (only 39 gun murders, with a population of 120 million people). His point is not that we have more guns per capita, but that we use them at a much higher rate than any other country.
Moore’s editing strategies are the strongest cinematic element in the film. He alternates between interviews (James Nichols, the brother of Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols, Marilyn Manson, Dick Clark, the staff at K-Mart headquarters, Charlton Heston) and montages. Early on, he interviews a manager at the Lockheed Martin missile-making plant near Columbine High School, asking him if he sees any connection between what happened at the school and what the impact and symbolic meaning the missile plant may have on people. Of course the man’s politic answer is that he sees “no connection.” Immediately following the man’s response we are presented with a disheartening montage chronicling American imperialism from the Cold War up to the September 11th attacks, clearly implicating the U.S. in the encouragement and exacerbation of war, heavy-casualty violence, and tyranny around the globe, 
from the CIA assassinations of foreign leaders to the training of al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. Another montage condenses the Y2K scare into a few minutes, amplifying the public’s tendency to buy into irrational fears. Yet another montage hammers on the racism angle, Moore compiling images from disparate news programs around the country, all pointing to the systemic racist representations and to the stereotyping of black men as troublemakers.
Then, of course, there is the Michael Moore shtick. Part of what turns people on or off to his films is his on-camera persona. His approach to the interviews allows him access to people and places I’d never be able to talk my way into. Surely he’s built a celebrity status at some level, but it’s his easygoing demeanor and passive image that gets people to talk to him. He’s kind of like everybody’s uncle: big, wooly, and soft around the edges. I find it amusing that some people try to blow him off. Dick Clark’s interview in this film makes the ageless star seem like an intransigent little weasel – running away at the sight of someone who may ask a tough question or two. He would have been better off just answering the questions. 
The same can’t be said for poor Charlton Heston. He allows Moore to interview him in his palatial estate, and fails miserably to defend his position with the NRA. Of course, Heston and the NRA seem to be an easy target, but I don’t feel bad for them. As Moore points out, the NRA and Heston were rallying in nearby Denver just days after the Columbine incident, and in Detroit, just a short distance from the killing of a six-year girl by another six year old in a downtrodden Flint elementary school.
If you look under the surface of most of these elements in the film, you can see Moore’s class-conflict angle percolating. As in his previous films, he clearly sees the issue of class struggle as one of the main reasons for oppression in this country. He’s become a champion of unions, and the “little guy,” as far as standing up to corporations and the bullying tactics of the politicians and the rich. At one point in the film he goes to the K-mart headquarters with two of the disabled survivors of Columbine, who still have bullets (bought at K-Mart) lodged in their bodies, to demand that the store stop selling ammunition. To Moore’s surprise, the stunt works: K-Mart decides to phases out the sale of bullets in all of their stores.
Moore has an opinion and there is no misunderstanding where he’s coming from – I count that as a virtue. Although this film won a special 55th Anniversary Award at the Cannes Film Festival last May, I highly doubt it will receive any Oscar recognition. It’s just too anti-establishment and anti-corporate for the Hollywood culture. Moore is taking on big business, the NRA and its supporters, and conservative politicians, while challenging the rest of us to look at ourselves. The irony is that it’s the best movie of the year, but not enough people will see it, I’m afraid, to make much of a difference.
So do yourself a favor – see this film, but leave your gun at home!
SOURCE
