(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.