You can watch the trailer here Should a documentary have an opinion? Or should it just showcase facts? I've never actually taken a film studies course and I majored in biochemistry before studying Journalism, so I will admit that I do not know the answer. From what I have learned in Journalism classes, there is no way anything can be unbiased. The best you can be hope for is to be as close to the truth as possible.
That being said, I don't think Michael Moore every loses sleep over the fact that his portrayal of the story may be considered biased or slanted. In fact, I think he enjoys that. The sort of smug sarcastic way in which he phrases his (open ended!) questions comes across–at least to me–as soaked in Moore's feeling of superiority to the "blue collar." I guess he probably is smarter than a lot of them, but I've never been a fan of people talking down to others. How does he get these people to talk to him? It just seems unnecessarily rude.
An interesting characteristic of Moore's Bowling for Columbine is that he makes the story very personal. He mentions when talking about Charlton Heston, that they grew up in neighbour towns. When interviewing acquitted terrorist James Nichols, he points out that they graduated the same day. From all the pictures and video footage he shows in the beginning of himself as a child using guns, it is clear that the story is very close to his heart. Perhaps it's that honesty and authenticity that makes this Moore documentary a lot more tolerable than his other efforts. It's actually a bit sad that I dislike this man so much, when I agree with almost everything he's trying to say. The medium is just the message sometimes. Good ol' McLuhan.
Watching it today (as in recently and not actually today), also gives it some more depth and gravitas considering what just happened in Arkansas with Gabrielle Gifford. In fact, since the midterm elections Rachel Maddow has been trying to highlight this weird crazy attitude some tea party candidates have been preaching. They all bring up the second amendment and the right to arms as some sort of way to force your way when democracy doesn't seem to work. Force instead of reason? Didn't the US just bomb Iraq for that? In any case, it's a theme that is repeated often, and how could it not be when gun control laws are the main focus point. As Nichols puts it when asked about his weapons: "When the government turns tyrannical, it is your duty to overthrow it." I guess the problem is always tyrannical according to whom?
Columbine does have some very strong moments, of course. Particularly, when Moore heads to one of the Columbine shooters' hometown and meets two of the local youth: Brent and DJ. After Columbine, DJ was put on a list of people suspected to be dangerous. The weird part is that what offends him is that he only made number 2. An expert at cooking up bombs using the (now) famous Anarchist Cookbook, DJ wants to be number 1. I guess the part that struck me as sad was when he mentioned that he wants to be number 1 at something. That's the problem with small towns. There are not a lot of opportunities out there. I hope that is something that people that live in bigger places never take for granted.
Another moment that stood out for me was when they interviewed Marylin Manson and South Park's Matt Stone. I wasn't surprised in the slightest but both of them came across as smart, kind and compassionate. Probably not something that is always assumed of them. I'm glad Moore decided to give them screen time.
Does Columbine really achieve anything? I don't think so. I think Moore is so abrasive with his opinion that the only ones that could sit through his documentaries are those that agree with him in the first place. Which is fine and dandy, except who is he really informing then?
Should guns be controlled? Of course. It's just as Nichols says (talking about nuclear arms, but it still applies!):
Moore: "Should you have the right to have it?"
Nichols: "That should be restricted. There are wackos out there."
Not recommended, unless you really like Moore.
