Moore sometimes stretches for effect with his constant connections between America’s military industrial complex, the CIA, and school shootings. But it certainly isn’t farfetched to believe that a culture that is willing to employ violence on a large scale for supposedly rational means can also commit acts of personal butchery; the same morning of the Columbine shooting saw the US bombing the Balkans more than ever. Moore is willing to bash presidents of both parties, although his slamming of George II is more open than his attacks on Bill Clinton. He’s done his share of Clinton-bashing in his books and on his website.
“Bowling for Columbine” is good all the way through but, surprisingly, really hits its stride when Moore pays a visit to Canada, which has only 68 firearm murders a year, compared to America’s 11,000 (of course, Moore fails to mention that America’s population is roughly eight times that of Canada, but if we increase Canada’s murder rate to 560 the disparity is still stunning). To the dismay of the left, Canada has just as many firearms as America, perhaps even a larger percentage, estimating seven million weapons for ten million families. To the dismay of the right, Canada has a minority population comparable to the United States and an even larger percentage of unemployment. To the dismay of the left, Canada has very loose gun laws, and Moore is able to pile up on ammo at a local Wal-Mart, where a sixteen-year-old clerk drops dozens of rounds while handing them over. To the dismay of the right, poverty in partially-socialist Canada seems to be not so bad, with “ghettos” that have clean playgrounds and neatly-parked cars. This is a nation of hunters and unlocked doors, and to prove this, Moore actually goes around opening front doors in Ontario. Moore’s trip to Canada more-or-less proves for him that guns themselves aren’t intrinisically the problem.
The disparity seems to be the result of a difference between American culture and other cultures around the world. The American media, so often considered a leftist bastion, are shown by Moore as agents for feeding right-wing dread, showing the world as a place of random, meaningless violence and hatred. The scapegoat for America’s fear, according to Moore, is and always has been ethnic minorities. Canadians watch American news and laugh at its hyperkinetic pandering of murders, burglaries, and rape. Studies have shown that violent crime has decreased by 20% since 1980, while news coverage of bloodshed has increased by 600% (once again, if Moore had used a different tone of voice to convey this information, he could have implied that increased news coverage has caused a decrease in violence; I don’t believe this, so I can’t think of such a tone of voice). Moore seems to argue that America’s national character is simply not calm enough to handle all the guns we have.
Here the movie could have done more. “Bowling for Columbine” could have explored more of what it means exactly to be an American. Our national character is rugged individualism and the drive to succeed. This may be why the US is the richest country in the world, the first to get to the Moon, the winner of all the big wars, and the only super-power left. The flip side of the individual’s drive to succeed is a lack of community and an overwhelming fear of failure, leading to an entire culture that lives in dread. In the same way that a few cultural clashes are the price to be paid for the richness of ethnic diversity, perhaps a too-frightened and too-violent society is the price to be paid for the leaps we have made. In the same way that a czarist Russia and a pre-Revolutionary France that practically ran off slave labor could build some of the most beautiful palaces and artwork of all time, perhaps a nation that cared more about its poor could never have made it to the Moon or defeated the Nazis.
The right will always say that guns are just fine in the hands of those who know how to use them, whereas “Bowling for Columbine” could be interpreted as going so far to the left that guns are only tolerable in the hands of a civilian culture that can handle them. It’s an interesting political convergence.
Somewhat tiring are Moore’s constant ironic tone, punk rock during pleasant interludes, and beautiful, familiar melodies over scenes of bloodshed. Still, this is a terrific movie, not because you have to agree with everything it says, but because it provides so much to think about, so much to argue. Even if you can think of cogent reasons to disagree with everything Moore has said you’ll have gotten your money’s worth—as long as you’re not a bad liberal that pushes your lip ring out of the way to swallow everything without a thought, and as long as you’re not a bad conservative who is so incensed by the entire mess that you can’t stop adjusting your big square glasses. This movie also teaches us to never be interviewed by Michael Moore, because if he wants you to look bad, you’ll look bad.
Finished January 3, 2003
Copyright © 2003 Friday & Saturday Night