011. Bowling for Columbine

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.

007. Taxi to the Dark Side

Stomach the trailer here
Taxi to the Dark Side is a documentary that tries to understand the circumstances that led to the death of Dilawar , a taxi driver that along with his 3 passengers was captured and sent to Bagram, an air base where suspects of terrorism were held. There his head was covered and he was submitted to stress positions and severe beatings to the legs until his body gave out. Dilawar died in Bagram. He was 22 and had a daughter and a family that were given a death certificate in a foreign language and no real explanation of what had just happened. The worst part is that Dilawar is not an isolated case.

Taxi to the Dark Side explores the American policy on torture and it is a really eye opening documentary that while graphic and at times very difficult to watch, is essential to understand if the human race ever wants to better itself.

Throughout the movie , vaguely familiar scenes of dehumanization of suspects in Abu Ghraib are shown and peppered with interviews of former soldiers (most of which were discharged), its the sort of stuff we saw on the news and decided maybe its best if we changed the channel. We hate torture, it disgusts us but lets not ruin our dinner by paying it too much attention. I think this sort of attitude passive allows this sort of intrinsically human, disgusting behaviour to carry on unchecked. You need to want to throw up. You need to hate humanity a little for what its capable of. This is the gasoline that lights the fire.

I think its easy to look at this documentary and conclude "Those Americans are awful people." You have people that are almost caricaturesque in appearance and fit the role of villain perfectly. From Yoo to Rumsfeld (who is quoted as saying "I stand 10 hours a day, why do terrorist suspects stand only 4."), these are the people that are destined to fill all circles of hell. Regardless of how easy it may be to cast them as the dark side, the USA are not alone in doing these awful things. They were using old torture chambers that belonged to Hussein. Canada is currently investigating claims that Canadian soldiers also took part in similar scenarios. Tony Blair gets called "war criminal" more often than he gets called Tony Blair. And the list goes on and on. I don't think the US, nor those military people responsible should get to wash their hands of what they did, but to simplify the situation is to minimize its real effect and that's the last thing families of victims, such as Dilawar's would want right now.

As a side note, I was actually pretty ecstatic about how fundamental to this investigation journalists were. It's definitely something that I considered when choosing my new career path and I find it inspiring. As difficult as it may be to be the first to see these things, its necessary and it changes lives and the world. So go journalism!

Recommended, definitely recommended. You need to know and see this and let that disgust motivate you to do something about these sort of things.