Reviews of Bowling for Columbine
Displaying all 3 reviews
Amir Syarif Siregar
1May10
Bowling for Columbine adalah sebuah film dokumenter karya sutradara Michael Moore yang dirilis pada tahun 2002. Film ini adalah film pertama yang membawa nama Michael Moore ke kancah internasional ketika Bowling for Columbine tidak hanya berhasil menjadi film dokumenter terlaris sepanjang masa (sebelum akhirnya disisihkan film Michael Moore lainnya, Fahrenheit 9/11), namun juga berhasil memenangkan banyak penghargaan termasuk Academy Award untuk Best Documentary Feature.
Bowling for Columbine sendiri membawa para penontonnya untuk melihat kembali apa yang sebenarnya terjadi pada tahun 1999, ketika dua orang pelajar Columbine High School secara membabi buta menembaki teman-teman sekolahnya dan menyebabkan kematian 12 orang pelajar dan seorang guru. Moore sendiri kemudian membawakan fakta bahwa masyarakat Amerika Serikat telah ‘ketergantungan’ dengan peralatan tembak seperti senapan, dimana alat tembak tersebut sangat mudah untuk didapatkan dan banyak orangtua yang tanpa sengaja ‘mengajarkan’ anak-anaknya untuk memiliki dan menggunakan senapan.
Judul Bowling for Columbine sendiri didapatkan dari fakta, seperti yang ditampilkan di film ini, dimana kedua pelajar pelaku pembunuhan tersebut, Eric Harris dan Dylan Klebold, mengikuti kelas olahraga bowling di pagi harinya, sebelum mereka berangkat ke sekolahnya untuk melakukan tindakan kejahatan tersebut.
Seperti biasa, film-film dokumenter yang dirilis Michael Moore selalu mengundang kontroversi. Jelas saja, film ini secara terang-terangan melakukan kritikan tajam terhadap pemerintah dan media Amerika Serikat yang sepertinya selalu memuja-muja senapan di kesehariannya dan membuat banyak anak kecil terpengaruh. Secara pedih, Moore juga memasukkan sebuah kisah insiden dimana seorang anak kecil berusia 6 tahun yang mengambil senapan pamannya kemudian membawa senapan tersebut ke sekolahnya dan menembakkannya pada salah seorang teman seusianya.
Memang, seperti yang selalu ditampilkan Moore di film-film dokumenternya, Bowling for Columbine juga terasa bagaikan sebuah perdebatan mengenai senapan yang dilakukan dan dilihat dari satu sisi saja. Hal ini tentu saja akan membuat Bowling for Columbine berat sebelah dengan ketidakhadiran pihak-pihak yang dikritisi oleh Moore untuk memberikan komentar mereka terhadap topik tersebut secara khusus di film ini. Namun, walau begitu, harus diakui Moore memang adalah pakarnya dalam membuat sebuah adu argumentasi mengenai sebuah obyek berat terlihat begitu ringan untuk dinikmati.
Berdurasi 120 menit, Moore mengisi Bowling for Columbine dengan berbagai fakta mengenai senapan (bahwa terjadi 11,127 kasus kejahatan menggunakan senapan di setiap tahunnya di Amerika Serikat, bandingkan dengan 165 kasus kejahatan dengan menggunakan senapan di Canada, negara tetangga US yang ternyata tercatat sebagai negara dengan masyarakat pemilik senapan terbesar di dunia), kegemaran masyarakat Amerika Serikat mengenai hal-hal berbau kejahatan (yang sayangnya, seperti di Indonesia, semakin diperkuat oleh media yang secara terus menerus menayangkan berbagai tayangan berbau kekerasan dan kejahatan), hingga hubungan dengan kegemaran tersebut dengan pemerintah Amerika Serikat (Moore membentuk suatu montage dengan latar belakang lagu Louis Armstrong, What a Wonderful World, yang menggambarkan bagaimana semenjak dahulu, Amerika Serikat-lah yang menjadi negara yang berada di balik berbagai perang besar yang terjadi di dunia).
Berbagai unsur-unsur pendukung ini kemudian disatukan Moore dengan unsur komedi-nya yang membuat film dokumenter politis ini menjadi sangat mudah untuk dimengerti dan dinikmati oleh siapapun. Bahkan jika Anda adalah seorang penonton yang berada di posisi yang berlawanan dengan Michael Moore, Anda harus mengakui bahwa Moore adalah seorang jenius yang mampu menyusun argumentasinya dengan sangat baik, dan mungkin akan membuat Anda berada di pihaknya begitu Anda selesai menyaksikan film ini. Sebuah dokumenter yang pintar dengan pesan yang sangat kuat.
Rating: 4 / 5
- Currently 4.0/5 Stars.
Hideous Bitch Princess
16Oct09
Michael Moore is a clever, creative dude with some interesting points, but at the same time he’s never entirely right (much like no one can be on issues this large.) Gun control to me however has always been a crock of shit, the same way the war on drugs is. Who cares if a bunch of wing nuts want to horde an arsenal of assault weapons in their basement, planning for the revolution they believe will take place when the “New World Order” comes. With the exception of a few isolated incidents, rarely do you hear about a guy taking his Uzi out for a nice shooting spree in the states where they are legal. Much more commonly do you hear about incidents involving irresponsible drunk drivers. Does this mean we should ban cars because assholes don’t know how to properly handle them? After all, the constitution can be manipulated to be interpreted pretty much anyway you want. My answer is no, guns, just like any other potentially dangerous object which requires responsible use should be regulated so that only those fit to obtain one can. After that, it’s our liberty to make whatever decision we want with that object, accepting all consequences which come with it. Should we ban cigarettes from the country for being the cause of hundreds of thousands of heart disease and cancer related deaths? Should we ban sugar from the country for causing over 50,000 diabetes related deaths a year? Should be ban the machinery involved in the over 25,000 “machinery related accidental deaths” that occur in a year. After all, of these items alike are linked to tens of thousands of more deaths a year than guns, which right now account for around 15,000. Again, I say no, people are at liberty to make their own decisions, intelligent or stupid. Apparently, guns provide both a physical and psychological sense of security, and though I would never personally own one I feel as if I have no right to judge a person who for whatever reason feels more comfortable while possessing one. That is, unless they have the intention of harming another with it. Unfortunately, the risk involved with personal freedom is that it may be use to put someone else’s in jeopardy, and there is no valid way of fixing that. On a side not, I also am growing very tired of the government telling us what we can’t do without balancing it with more things we can do. Not to mention the fact that by actively pursuing any type of forbiddance on anything, it merely opens a black market which will cause us more problems in the long run. Ask the government how things went with alcohol prohibition, when they single handedly provided the mob with a market and room to grow into what they did. Also ask the government the monster they’ve created in foreign drug cartels by fighting a hopeless war on drugs while wasted resources at the same. I agree with much of what Michael Moore has to say about globalization, and the gain of corporate power at the expense of true democracy, however with “Bowling for Columbine,” I found him considerably off base. 2 stars for being a good conversation starter and Moore’s dry humor. P.S. The question on the film description is why our country’s history is so riddled with violence, and the answer is because we’re an imperialist empire, and we share very similar qualities with other imperialist empires (violence being one of them.) Every country who has had power has a history of violence, we’re just the (bloody) flavor of the week.
- Currently 2.0/5 Stars.
Todd Kushigemachi
25May09
(Originally written August 17, 2006)
Michael Moore is an interesting man, hated by conservatives because of his obnoxiously liberal films and despised by fellow Democrats for giving their political ideologies a bad name. However, his films are often clever and creative in a way that helps to bring about his message in an effective way, perhaps analogous to sugar-coating medicine. What makes this film so powerful is the fact that it never finds the real solution for why America has so many issues with handgun violence. It is not just a cry for gun control but, rather, an investigation of violence and its treatment in America. It is full of information that helps viewers to ask themselves questions about the violence and fear in America. Does it have to do with the fact that there has been a 20% decrease in crime rate but a 600% increase in coverage of crime? Should there be concern that, on the day of the Columbine shooting, the United States dropped more bombs on Kosovo than on any other day? Perhaps the best aspect of the film is that Moore is able to get a variety of views including those of Marilyn Manson, the musical artist often blamed for Columbine, and Matt Stone, one of the creators of the violent cartoon South Park. Moore is also able to point out some of the inconsistencies in the backing of the Second Amendment and where one has to draw the line as to what is or what is not acceptable. Are nuclear weapons considered arms, and, if so, are they also protected under the Second Amendment?
Regardless of its strengths, Bowling for Columbine is a messy film that ultimately lacks cohesion. Moore covers a lot of important topics, yet they do not always add up together in a skillful way. Perhaps another flaw is that the film features the comments of common people, and, although the average person’s opinions matters just as much as an expert’s democratically speaking, the film often fails as a documentary. This is a piece of propaganda, however effective, more than a documentary. There are also points where Moore seems to go too far. Take for example the scene in which a black single mother is working a job at a restaurant in Dick Clark’s chain, and Moore attempts to confront Clark about supporting a system that forces underprivileged mothers to work hard at the expense of being able to raise their children. Instead of Dick Clark getting a chance to speak out on the issue, Dick Clark drives away at the sight of Michael Moore. Clark does not look good, but this is more evidence of the fact that he hates Moore than the fact that he does not care about suffering single mothers.
In the end, this movie is good, allowing the audience to walk away informed, entertained, and full of questions. Honestly, I doubt Michael Moore wants anything more than that.
- Currently 4.0/5 Stars.