by Julian, Amanda, and Evan
Bowling For Columbine, 2002, Michael Moore, 119 minutes
Guns. they've been around for many years and are now almost a part of American culture. but is America really in control of their gun situation? this is what Michael Moore, the famous documentary filmmaker sets out to discover in the documentary "Bowling for Columbine." we see how his persuasive ability can change the opinion of many by the way he presents his documentary films. this is what we call rhetoric, the art of persuasion. we also compared it to the film "Fahrenheit 9/11" and explained how rhetoric is present in that film too.
“Bowling for Columbine” is a documentary film that was created to promote an issue that affects many people and their lives. This is the issue of gun control; which is a huge problem in the states. Michael Moore, the director of this documentary, shows us how easy it is for a person to get their hands on a gun. He even brings us to a bank in America where almost anyone can receive a free gun when opening an account with the bank and how one can purchase ammunition while getting their hair cut. This is in a country where guns are the reason for over 11 000 deaths each year! I wonder why..
Michael Moore wanted to show the world why guns shouldn’t be so easy to come by. He told us a story about a six year old that found a gun in his uncle’s house and brought it to school. What happened next affected many people’s lives especially that of the other six year old that got shot and died. The shooting at columbine high school was also an eye-opener to how easy the access of guns are; three shotguns, and a machine gun were used in the assault; most of the bullets were purchased at the local K-Mart down the street.
Moore set off to uncover what the reason was for all these Americans having the need to own a gun and found that it was mostly because Americans lived in fear. He compared the media coverage in Canada and the states. He realized that what was being covered in American media was a whole lot of violence and in Canada, well not so much. That’s when Moore decided to ask a few Canadians if they were scared, most of them answered no and said they didn’t even lock their doors at night. This is mostly because we don’t have many guns here in Canada. So is Michael Moore right when he says that our society would be better without guns?
The topic for that week was rhetoric, which is pretty much the art of persuasion. There are three forms of address which are used to convince an audience.
Logos is using evidence and facts to build an argument; like when Michael Moore compares gun deaths in America to other countries in the world. I was shocked to see how high the states were, compared to the rest of the countries.
Ethos is to believe someone because of who they are; a perfect example of this is how Charles Heston can influence the Americans to buy guns, just by the way he preaches them. Everyone believes what he says about guns and how Americans “need” them to keep safe, only because of his social status as the president of the NRA.
Pathos is using people’s emotion to change their view on something; this is what Michael Moore used as a basis for the documentary. The whole film is focused around the school shooting that happened at Columbine high school where many kids died. This appeals to our emotions and changes our view on gun control making us realize how relax it is that two teenagers can get access to these automatic weapons used to kill many students.
"Fahrenheit 9/11"
To say that “Fahrenheit 9/11`” is one sided is an understatement. In his 2004 film, Michael Moore provides us with the “facts” about George W. Bush, the war on Iraq and how Bush is a corporate puppet. Throughout the film, Moore throws facts and statistics at the viewer that sometimes seem out of place. The main focus is on how Bush does not take his role as president as serious as he should. This movie focuses on the affects of 9/11 and the paranoia caused because of it. Due to all the interviews and clips shared on the media, Many civilians in the United States were left in fear after the tragedy on September 11,2001. They did not feel safe, and who can really blame them. After 9/11, Iraq was then attacked by the U.S. troops because Bush sent them. Many people question if the war between the U.S. and Iraq was necessary. Moore interviewed a woman who lost her son to the war, and she even questions if the war really did help or not. Moore based the film on Bush, and how he could have taken immediate action in order to save his nation before it became out of hand. He shares footage on the numerous vacations Bush took while he was president and even a few interviewers asked him why he was taking so much time off instead of working. A tool that Moore used in “Fahrenheit 9/11” is conspiracies such as the allegations Moore makes, saying that the Bush administration helped get the Bin Laden family out of the united states after the twin tower bombings on September 11th 2001. Another aspect of the movie that struck me as odd was the fact that Moore is very selective of who he chooses to interview. For example, when he wants to make a point that the war in Iraq shouldn’t have happened, Moore interviews a well spoken soldier who has similar views to his own, but when he looks at the other side of the story (Bush) he makes Bush and his supporters seem as stupid as possible. celebrity that was interviewed to defend the Bush administration was Britney Spears, which as is plainly obvious, is no expert on politics. It seems that in both “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 911” the filmmaker only wanted to let the world know his point of view rather than let the viewer see both sides of the story and decide for themselves.
Both “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Bowling for Columbine” used background music that at times seemed over dramatic or completely comical. For example, when Moore interviewed the mother who’s son had died in Iraq, there was sad music playing to let us know how to feel about the scene. In my opinion, it just seemed as though Moore was trying to manipulate his audience to share his point of view by playing with the background music and by giving us “facts”, which were mostly just portions of the truth used to play with our feelings. This can be seen as both effective and ineffective depending on the viewer. Personally it makes the scene seem less serious and I believe it hurts the credibility of the movie a bit.
Rhetoric is a concept that Moore uses in both Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine as well as many other of his films. He manipulates logos, ethos and pathos to get his point across and to convince the audience.
What Moore is very good at is presenting evidence to prove his cause (logos), throughout both movies, he presents the viewer with information about gun violence, gun ownership, poverty etc.
Ethos, is when Moore interviews celebrities about the topic at hand, which can be very effective to prove a point like in “Bowling for Columbine” when Moore speaks to Charlton Heston about gun rights, or when Marylyn Manson is interviewed. The problem is, he also interviews people who have no buisness being interviewed, like Britney Spears in “Fahrenheit 9/11” who says she trusts the Bush administration.
I believe that both “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11” were made as a criticism of American society. The idea that Moore wants to get across is that the American people are being manipulated into thinking that things are a lot worse than they are in some respects, gun violence, and to try and get the people to see things in a different way.
After watching bowling for columbine, I agree that Mr. Moore was trying to make the Americans look bad but I personally think it’s true. If we look at the percentages again, we see that the way how the Americans are handling guns and firearms is completely ludacris. I suppose the reason why Moore was criticising the American in a mocking way is simply because it was easier for the viewers to take it in and brush it off but in reality we should be more aware of it and take it as a serious matter.
ReplyDeleteAshley Dixon
Enjoyed reading your blog. The fundamental question `Bowling for Columbine' asks is: What's responsible for the exceptionally high level of killing in America? Not a lot of guns, Moore points out, because other countries have that. Not a violent history, because other countries have that. Not a love of violent movies, video games, and so forth, because other countries love all that too. Not poverty, unemployment, and ethnic diversity, because lots of countries have more poverty and Canada has as much ethnic diversity and more unemployment. Two things, according to Moore, are primary causes: the US media, which, as he shows, fans up fear constantly among the American populace; and the government in Washington, which solves everything by bombing people somewhere. There's a third thing that emerges more subtly: a gun culture, which leads to the absurd notion of self-defense, perpetuating the violence and the fear and the racism. In this the leading force is that powerful lobby, the National Rifle Association. The result of this lethal combination delineated by Moore, particularly since 9/11, is that Americans aren't very happy people: they live in a constant state of rage, perturbation, and fear, when they're not disolved in tears for the dead who're falling in the houses and streets and schools of the country on a daily basis. This should change.
ReplyDelete- Joelle Shedid
After watching Bowling for Columbine, it brought up more questions than answers. Why would it be so easy to buy a gun? Why do Canadians have less strict laws for buying guns, but are still safer towards using them? Michael Moore made Americans seem as “bad” people for being influenced by the media, but America would be a much safer and less freighting place if fear wasn't fed into the brains of everyone watching the news. I feel that the NRA and the Government has the power to make people feel this way, but if they both worked harder to make people not afraid see someone with a turban, it would benefit everyone. Everyone watching the news is being influenced, and if they paid more attention to helping the environment or topics that don’t deal with violence, the United State would be a much safer place to live.
ReplyDeleteRomandeep Bedi
As much as I admire how well Michael Moore makes his movies to appear convincing, I can't help but feel that things are not as they seem. Why would he ask random Canadian students skipping class about their environment? Is getting denied interviews a sign of empowering your argument? Moore does not take no for an answer and because of this, his movies suffer from a sense of bias.
ReplyDeleteThe film "Michael Moore Hates America" is a great documentary criticizing Moore's approach and showing what is wrong with his manipulative movies. For someone who exposes The United States as a manipulated country, he does not fare well when being compared to who he attacks.
Jamieson Cunanan
I think that Michael moore is trying to show us that in the American society they are failing to realize how big of a problem this actually is. Yes i do agree on the fact that he should have asked some other Canadians but at the end of the day he was just trying to show Americans the difference. Guns were also allowed in Canada but yet why was there not as much killings like there were in america.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your blog entry, it was written very well. I liked how Aristotle's means of persuasion and appeal (Logos, Pathos and Ethos) were included and used when describing Moore's arguments towards gun use in the United States. Although biased, I liked Moore's documentary style in Bowling For Columbine. It was nice to watch an every day problem in our world be made light and fluffy. Moore tried to brighten the mood by including humorous clips such as " A Brief History Of The USA ". The concept that guns are bad was made much more relatable to everyone who watched.
ReplyDeletePippa Dupuis
Having seen this movie a hand full of times I can’t doubt its entertainment value, Michel Moore is very good at drawing in his audience and even better at manipulating them to agree to his opinions. His well-balanced mixture of topical issues, easy to digest facts and entertainment value really separate him from other film makers. That being said having seen this a few times I can defiantly say that the more you watch it the easier it is to pick up on Michel Moore’s trickery, like the scene in the gun shop asking the man how many friends he knows who own guns. Well obviously the guy is going know a lot of people who own guns he’s at a shooting range! Or asking those random kids about gun violence where he essentially lets 3 high school students be Canada’s ambassadors on all current events. Despite his manipulative style of film making however the film was very entertaining , and the blog post was well written as well, very well thought out.
ReplyDelete-Alex Sykes
I really enjoyed reading your blog. I agree after watching Bowling for Columbine and reading about Fahrenheit 9/11 that Michael Moore does tend to manipulate the audience to agree with his point of view. I found the blog addressed all the topics that were discussed throughout both films and in class. I also agree that in the documentary film Bowling for Columbine, that Michael Moore would sometimes take away from the gravity of the issue’s being discussed by showing a comical clip for example the South Park episode that showed "A brief history of the USA."
ReplyDelete-Megan Owen
Great job on the blog. It is very well written and explained.
ReplyDeleteI very much enjoyed the movie Bowling for Columbine.
Moore uses manipulative techniques that allow the viewers to get a laugh out of it, but also understand and realize the impact that guns have had on American society. His approach is entertaining, yet very powerful and relatable to the audience.
You gave great evidence from the movies proving his persuasion methods (pathos, ethos, logos), I completely agree. The movie really gets the viewers thinking about the reason why Americans feel the necessity to own a gun, increasing the violence rate drastically, compared to that of Canada, for example. Isn't the reason there IS fear in the United States because of the guns/violence?
Brianna Duchene
Very good job on the blog, I really like how the authors show that Micheal Moore's films, although informative, are very very one sided and possibly downright manipulative. Although I do agree with Moore on a lot of the subjects he talks about, I still think it is very wide to form your own opinion. Moore may be one of the only people who dislikes Americans slightly more than me. Overall the writing for the blog is clear with points and summaries made well.
ReplyDeleteOther than a few grammatical errors at the beginning, I really enjoyed reading your blog. In the Documentary "Bowling for Columbine" I feel like Michael Moore did a good job at convincing people with rhetoric as you have mentioned. When I was watching this documentary, my mind was filled with the word "Why?" Why did he choose those set of teenagers to interview? Why did he choose that specific Canadian city? I'm not saying that all his methods of persuasion were bad, but these select few along with a couple of others stood out to be questionable.
ReplyDeleteAbout Americans owning guns. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The reason the Second Amendment was created was to protect against a government that compromised the security of a free state. Today people will say that they own guns for self-defense. This is where I agree with Michael Moore. A good chunk of the American population that owns guns are scared of being robbed/attacked and feel much more comfortable with a more ergonomic way of defending themselves. Although this didn't happen overnight. Over time media has put many people in a fearful position by telling stories about crime and then putting their often ignorant political spin on it and telling them their opinion while moulding the viewers point of view on it into a negative one.
Something that Moore did not bring up when he was comparing Canada to the United States was the population. Sure he showed us that the amount of death by guns was lower in Canada, but the population is also 10x smaller. It is definitely much easier for the Canadian government to keep a lid on things with a much smaller population than the States. Population is not the only factor though. In the States there is much more crime. If you are going to commit such illegal activities, you cannot count on the law enforcement officials to aid you so people just handle that themselves and what easier way to do that than with a gun?
I would also like to point out that you said: "we don’t have many guns here in Canada." I disagree with that. It was pointed out in the film that Canadians did in fact own a lot of guns due to hunting reasons. I did the research and the ratio of guns to people is not as high as it is in the States, but is is definitely still up there.
All in all, Moore's view on the right to bear arms is without-a-doubt a biased one. If this documentary was created with a more neutral point of view, I am sure we would have been able to formulate a much better opinion about guns even if it still be a negative one.
Adam Diamzon
Wow this is an amazing blog I can't really add anything haha! You made little spelling mistakes and small grammar mistakes also but since there are like a million words it would be comprehensible that your writing isn't perfect so no worries!
ReplyDeleteI love the connection with both movies though. It's pretty ironic because Michael Moore is in fact American but in both films he makes fun of how the system works in America and is saying how George Bush was an A-hole (no offence George). The good quality that Moore has is that, as everyone knows, he's really good in using his sense of humour and especially sarcasm. Obviously, this is proven to be one of the most 'attractive' and effective methods to catch peoples' attention even if they disagree with what he says. A thing I really like about his sarcasm is that he uses it on the people he interviews (well, not all but mostly) to ridicule them and he's clearly making fun of them and the amazing part in this is that THEY DON'T EVEN NOTICE!! It makes them seem one thousand times more ignorant and dumb don't you agree? What I also find interesting is that in Fahrenheit 9/11, I can't recall if he did use his sense of humour but I remember how he was serious about it. This, in my opinion, caused an even greater effect because usually Moore is not serious, but since he is in this movie, the viewers immediately know that this is a serious case and it is not something to joke about. And as you said, his use of music did amplify emotions during both movies and this is how he shows that maybe he's joking about it and all, but they are both important situations that should be addressed and seen as they really are.
-Sabrina Morin
Great work on blog! I enjoyed reading it. you guys gave good information about the films.I think Michael Moore did a good job at convincing people in two films. We can actually feel the pain for those innocent people who died. i think Guns are not the problem. It is us that is the problem. Because we created guns and now we use it. If there is something good about using a gun then there is something bad too. but overall this blog explained everything and and gave details about these movies. :- Raja
ReplyDeleteMicheal Moore explores the darkest side of America - the society built on fear. Fear of terrorists, fear of the colored, fear of your neighbor. It appears that Americans have lost perspective, not noticing the real dangers of life: pollution, traffic, e.t.c. With TVchannels telling stories only about violence and terrorism and politicians scaring people to vote for them Americans trust only in themselves. Michael tries with this movie to make the Americans consider and think for themselves being rationals, and to tell the rest of the world how the American society works. It's impressive that Moore and two young men seriously injured at Columbine were able by their confrontations to shame WalMart into taking handguns and ammunition out of their stores and Moore appeared to have been very surprised and impressed by this result himself. he did these kids a great achievement that has saved many.
ReplyDeleteRachelle Miville
I enjoyed reading the blog entry, it was well organized and explained a lot but I do feel there is something I think should be corrected. Like the fact that in the blog it stated that Canada did not posses many guns but in fact they possess just as much as America does. I do also feel that Micheal Moore was also trying to appeal to our logic in the sense that, what does Canada have that America doesn't, even if they both posses a large amount guns. I also think that guns are terrible man-made creations that destroy lives and lead to various disagreements and wars.
ReplyDeleteLiiwir Nfor.
When I was 12 years old, I loved Michael Moore films because of the entertainment value which was a must, especially since I hated and couldn't respect anything that was not fast-paced at that age. Without me knowing, he was good at shoving a big load of propaganda down my throat, which basically meant the foundation of my first political opinions. To be honest, they really sucked since Michael Moore tried to appeal to emotions to hide some of lies which plagued my opinions and thoughts. I especially hate how he assumes that were all suppost to be supporters of the left-wing in his films by making the right-wing look like absolute clowns. In bowling for columbine he makes gun supporters look like morons, in fahrenheit 9/11, he laughs at George Bush and demonizes right-wing politics by doing so and in capitalism: a love story, he also associated the economic crisis with George Bush and his politics. I really wish he could showcase left-wing and right-wing ideoligies in a non-biased format, so we can decide for ourselves which party fits our beliefs. Since, all of his films basically boil down to right vs left, I think that its safe to say that Moore is left-wing nutcase.
ReplyDelete- Vincent
This blog does a good job of summarizing the documentary “Bowling for Columbine” but there is one thing that I noticed in the blog entry. And I see that a few others have picked up on this as well. The issue that Michael Moore is trying to raise isn’t the fact that Americans carry around more guns than Canadians. We carry almost just as many guns as they do! But for some reason, the crime rate is significantly lower here in Canada. The death by gun percentage is also much lower. Michael Moore points out to us that it all has a lot to do with what is shown to us in the media. That plays a key role in both of our societies.
ReplyDelete-Jordan. T
Good job on memorising both films but your starting sentence wasn't really a full sentence try to avoid one word starting because I understand your trying to make a point but grammatically its not a sentence try saying "Guns, blah blah blah" I loved " I believe it hurts the credibility of the movie a bit." because it really does hurt his creditability in what he's saying. So the opinions were great guys and the point were very good in what you say keep it up.
ReplyDelete-Victoria