"Bowling for Columbine" (Documentary) (2002) - Movie Review

There is a very valid point made by this film which discusses the ambience of fear over the US. Even though there are parts of it which does not dig part of the certain tragic events which occurred, this film definitely takes those to essentially bring out the state of an average American. It projects that he/she is afraid of some x or y threaten the life of theirs and their family. It also shows some light on the business opportunity taken by the media which seems true even today.

The film circles around the main issue of the access of guns to every one and it has become a necessity in a world circling of violence. The winning factor of the film is the way it lays around the facts and problems in an engaging way. The movie brings out solid issues around a country clouded by a fear nested by media and also by the people themselves. Seeing should not lead to believing and in the fast lane of this mechanical life, there seems to be a convenient negligence in terms of not researching a potential issue. When a media projects the whole world as a place of evil residing 24/7, people believing in it without any questioning, is really sad. Instead of getting a weapon to protect him/her and family, it becomes the responsibility of them to have some outward thoughts on those issues. A community or society becomes one when each other have care and not enmity against each other. The film documents that it is a fear being invested unnecessarily and need clearance.

It made some bold and clear problems sorted out rather than complaining. The director tried to show light on how the “welfare work” defeats the purpose of it. This movie may be projected as one against gun culture but it is more of an awakening needed in the people. It addresses the fact that there is lot more issues than killing people in different countries. It says that the issues inside the country need to be the first priority of care than bombing some other place in a world. The manifestation of hatred towards people needs to be addressed and the film brings them with clarity and helps realize the real picture.

There appears to be lot of questions left unanswered. The reason it felt unanswered is that the film does not commit itself, in a good way. That is a subtle beauty in this documentary. Letting the audience ask those questions and determine what they want to do. They did not want to thrust in their suggestion which very well might have turned into propaganda. If they would have had those in the film, then it would have shadowed some cloud of doubts on dealing the issue with equanimity. That is the success of this documentary. It does not super impose with speeches but with the incidents and the resultant of it. With those, it pushes the audience in their emotional spot and asks them to think. They ask to think the responsibilities of them. It asks them to think and decide on what to believe and what not to. It assists in those thinking by the interviews, facts and situations prevailing inside the country.

There is no doubt that the culture of having a gun prevails. There is no doubt that the system of fear is in the back of every one’s mind. There is also no doubt that the media replays the worst violence and not the real issue of pollution and poverty. The movie clears all the doubts and says it is time for the people to filter those. There are problems in the film as to having contradictory factor coming out too. For example, Michael Moore, the director compares the statistics of the crimes in other countries and how they have the same scenario as that of US. So it essentially is the problem with the people’s state of mind. And the people constitute business men, lawyers, doctors, bus drivers, and software engineers, any one and every one in it. But there seems to be more agitation shown on the then owner of NRA (National Rifle’s Association), Charles Heston alone instead of making all the people stand up for it. I am not arguing that the insensitive behaviour of him is right, but circling him as the main issue seems slightly going away from the main problem. It could have been avoided.

There is a sequence in which Moore interviews the brother of Terry Nichols. Terry Nichols is one of the guys who were found responsible for the Oklahoma Bombing of a Federal building. His brother John Nichols says that guns are the way to defend ourselves and Moore asks; “Why not use Gandhi's way? He didn't have guns, and he beat the British Empire.” And the reply comes after a confused pause as “I'm not... familiar with that.” There is clear indication of comfortable ignorance in it. The film shakes it out in every one and pushes them wisely to take responsibility.