Movie: Bowling for Columbine
Director: Michael Moore
Producer: Michael Moore
Reviewed by Marc Pezzell 10/29/02

I recently saw the movie "Bowling for Columbine", by Michael Moore, which explores guns and gun violence in the U.S. This was quite a thought provoking and disturbing documentary, to say the least.

During the film, Michael illustrated with interviews and demonstrations, just how crazy things have become in the U.S. with guns, crime, and violence and how the massacre at Columbine a few years ago, really shouldn't surprise anyone. He also briefly examined the factors that have, through common discussions, been viewed as possible, likely, or definite causes of our obscenely large number of gun related deaths in the U.S. They include unemployment, access to firearms and ammunition, changing ethnicity,  and the history and the glorification of violence.

For each factor, however, Michael Moore makes the case that other countries, such as Great Britain, Germany, or Canada, have the same, similar, or even worse problems than the U.S., but without the huge number of gun related deaths.  Michael Moore, who happens to be a member of the NRA, does not say at any time that the availability of guns in the U.S. should be curtailed.  In fact, he does not offer any answers as to what is causing this catastrophic problem or on how to solve it.

That wasn't his job, however, in making this film.  He did what he had apparently set out to do, which was to ask the right questions, and to encourage others to do the same.

Although Michael Moore does not advocate the curtailing of firearm availability, he does, however, conduct a few, rather damning, interviews with strong proponents of gun availability and the 2nd amendment.  Two of them included the brother of one of the Oklahoma City bombers and Charton Heston, the spokesperson for the NRA. 

What I found most striking was their near complete lack of ability to adequately defend their positions.  They could not give a solid reason as to why they had the right to have firearms, why they really needed them, or what the 2nd amendment really means.  They didn't even come close.  It was all too easy for Mr. Moore to back them into a corner.  In fact, even one who lacks Mr. Moore's intellect could have done the same quite easily.

As I've said before, Michael Moore does not offer answers but asks questions.  I will now do the same.  During the part of the film when different factors were discounted as the causes of the gun violence in the U.S., I ask the following question first.  Could each of these factors be far more complex than they way they were portrayed in the movie?

Does not Canada take better care of their unemployed citizens?  Is not Germany's history of violence more distant than recent?  How about changing ethnicity?  Is it possible that Canada and it's people don't penalize it's non white citizens the way that we do here?  Are they less frustrated as a result?

As for the availability of guns and ammo in Canada, I was surprised by how prevalent they appeared to be in the film. Are there other ways in which Canada is more restrictive that was not portrayed?

How about the glorification of violence? Several young people were portrayed as playing violent video games and anxiously awaiting the next shoot-em-up movie from the U.S.A. to be released.  I must admit, I have done the same, but I would never even think of picking up or using a real gun.  I am able to make the distinction between make believe and real gun violence.

Is it possible that, despite the popularity of gun violence in entertainment in Canada, these Canadian youths make this distinction as well and would be completely horrified if they were confronted by, a witness to, or a participant in real gun violence?

I have still more questions.  Could it be that a factor is harmless in one country, but dangerous in another?  I have often heard of the extremely liberal drinking laws in Europe, yet their death rate for drunk driving is a fraction of that of the U.S.

Is it possible that, because of their makeup, they are somehow able to handle drinking better than us?  In that vein, is it possible that other countries are better able to handle their firearms responsibly and we cannot?  Could it also be possible that, while any one factor may not be the cause of the massive gun related deaths in the U.S., a combination of more than one factor is the culprit?

To make an analogy, a tree branch may not break from high winds alone, nor a large bear climbing on it alone, nor erosion from termites alone.  However, a tree branch that has been eroded by termites, under the weight of a large bear, and under stress from high winds, all at the same time, may snap under the combined factors.

Here's another possible factor that is almost never mentioned in the U.S. media, and it may be, perhaps, the most important factor of all.  Could it be that urban sprawl, the corresponding lack and inadequacy of urban and community centers, and the resulting lack of community is the real culprit?  Could it be the stress, danger, and congestion of our automobile culture, one of the main factors that drives sprawl?

The unpleasantness of the automobile does, after all, make street life something to be avoided, the same street life where people meet, get to know one another, and basically learn how to behave and interact toward other human beings.  At one time, crime was much lower in the U.S. Why?  What changed?  Sprawl and the freeways that connected them were very few before World War II, but are almost everywhere now.

Could this be a factor in what is causing our massive crime wave?  After all, without community, people don't get to know one another, they become isolated, deprived of social education, and human interaction and affection. Could this be a factor?  Hint.  Could this be a BIG factor?

The movie "Bowling for Columbine", makes those who view it think, and think hard, and to ask questions.  I will probably see it again in order to absorb more of the huge amounts of information, in case I missed anything. What we need in the U.S. are more people like Michael Moore who ask questions and ask others to do the same.  Maybe, somewhere along the way, we will find the answers and the solutions we need to stop this madness.  Until then, maybe I will move to Canada.

On a scale of one to four, I give it a three.

Back to Your Page