Bowling For Columbine - Documentary Research

Bowling for Columbine is a documentary made by director Michael Moore. Created in 2002, this documentary explores the possible reasons behind the April 20th 1999 shootings which killed twelve students and 1 teacher in Littleton, Colorado at Columbine high school. Moore also looks briefly at the history of America and their relationship with guns, and then goes on to campaign against K-Mart selling bullets with the help of Columbine student, Richard Castaldo, who was rendered disabled after being shot in the back, chest and arms with K-Mart ammunition.

 Written, produced and directed by Moore, "Bowling for Columbine" was released in November of 2002, with a budget of $4,000,000, and soon became the highest grossing documentary in the UK and Australia.

During the documentary, Moore speaks to multiple people about what happened in Littleton. He talks to people who were affected by the incident, as well as celebrities such as Charlton Heston and Marilyn Manson. I think that the use of people that the audience could possibly idolise gives the viewers a connection to the incident and allows them to have an opinion. As well as speaking to people involved directly, Moore also includes footage of news broadcasts and interviews with related issues. I think that he used this technique because it enforces the reality of the subject onto viewers.

 Michael Moore was born in Flint, Michigan, just a days drive from Columbine, Colorado. In 1999 he had just finished creating a documentary called "Teen Sniper School' which was of a similar nature to Moore's other controversial documentarys (Roger and Me; Canadian Bacon), when he heard about the shootings at the high school. As he started to look more into the reports about the incident, he discovered the "chilling coincidences" amongst what had happened and the people involved. He writes in his directors notes that "he had been intrigued to find out more about the culture he had been raised in" and so went to producer Micheal Donovan with his idea of making a feature length documentary about guns. Donovan agreed to fund the project. I think they wanted to create this documentary with Moore to outline America's relationship with guns, and to encourage audiences to think about how they view crime.
 Moore has a very distinctive style of documentary making, he creates controversy and then resolves it, all in the name of creating a good movie. Every Michael Moore film is easily recognisable, with a picture of Moore on the front cover. This is a good indication of what a viewer will find when they watch a film by this creator, a documentary filled with Moores own opinions 80% of the time, and the subject that covers the rest of the 20%. Although this could be seen as a very selfish point of view, Moore creates a fantastic view of each subject, and isn't afraid to bring up the hard home-truths that other documentary makers would shy away from due to legal and political issues. This controversial take on subjects such as George W Bush ( Farenheiht 9/11) , Gun Crime (Bowling for Columbine) and the American health system (Sicko) has not gone unnoticed and in the year of 2004, Disney owned company 'Miramax' announced that it would not be distributing Farenheiht 9/11 because they didnt intend to "be the distributor of a politically charged movie in an election year".  Moore then fought the case and won, Farenheiht 9/11 was released later on in 2004, showing again that Michael Moore stands up for what he wants the publc to know, regardless of the political controversy it might cause.

 "Bowling for Columbine" was created with the intention to shock viewers into listening and taking into consideration how their culture has influenced them. Moore uses the technique of a non-linear storyline to give the audience multiple things to think about, this allows them to take information on and think about what they have heard, and then connect it to the other parts of the film. I think that that he used this technique because of the nature of the subject. The shootings that happen around America are ongoing occurrences, and by giving the documentary an opening and ending it would have falsely conveyed a conclusion to the reasons behind the crime, however by using this non-linear approach, Moore has left the idea open to other answers to the question "Are we a nation of gun nuts, or are we just nuts?".

  Because "Columbine" is the main and emotive subject of the documentary, Moore had be careful as to how he handled the issues surrounding it. As an experienced film maker, I think that he was aware that to involve too much gloom would have limited his target audience and so instead injected the piece with some wry humour, and I believe he did this to allow some relief for the viewers from the hard hitting facts.

  Although I enjoyed "Bowling for Columbine" and the issues it raised about American culture, I feel that Moore could have chosen some better points to argue, and possibly chose the wrong people to put those points too. For example, the fight against K-Mart was slightly unfair, because the two boys that carried out the shootings, could have brought the bullets from any store that sells ammunition, like Moore demonstrated when he purchased bullets from his barber.

 From watching this documentary, I have realised what effect stock footage can have on a subject. Moore uses a variety of footage, from old war videos; to news reports; to presidential footage of Clinton announcing the bombings in Kosovo just an hour before the shootings began in Littleton. He has manipulated the footage to fit his story, and although this could be perceived as deceptive, I think that the use of this footage is in context with the point Moore is trying to make about America's destructive nature.

 Accompanying the hard-hitting parts of the film, is a soft soundtrack of piano. This is used during the segment that shows the audience CCTV footage and reports from inside and around the school on the 20th April. I feel that this part of the documentary is the most emotive part because of the soundtrack used, and then the actual 911 calls are placed on top. I think that the use of these calls enforces the reality of the situation to the audience, and hearing the panic encourages them to sympathise with the victims. In other parts of the film, he also uses appropriate soundtracks. For example, during the part of the documentary where we are shown all of the facts in caption form about how the U.S have funded terrorist organisations, Moore uses "wonderful world" by Louis Armstrong to accompany the shocking footage. I think this is appropriate because the point he is trying to make is that America sugar coats all of their mistakes, and he therefore does the same by using a sickly sweet song to dampen the blow of the horryfying facts and crime that we see as we listen to the music. In other parts of the film, Moore uses his words as a voice-over to explain some of the things he is doing, and why he is doing them. I think that by using this "god-like" technique, he is able to inflict his opinion onto the viewers and therefore immediatley persuades them to be on his side.

 Although I am interested by the way Michael Moore has produced this documentary, Im am unsure wether I would use this as inspiration for my own piece because my target audience could possibly get confused with the back and forth nature of a non-linear storyline. I also think that the nature of my subject would benefit from being told in a different context.