Bowling for Columbine
The Foe-Glass
J.K. Rowling, in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, introduces us to the Foe-Glass. The Foe-Glass shows not your face but the faces of your enemies. If they are far away, they appear indistinct. If they are near, then they appear sharp and clear. The Foe-Glass provides you with a warning of your enemies, their movements, and their intentions.
It is not my intention here to dissect or discuss the Columbine massacre, which by now has been traipsed over by more people than any other part of the American landscape except for the grassy knoll in Dallas. And like the Kennedy assassination, the Columbine massacre has become a Foe-Glass. People look at it and see the reflection of their enemy, whatever their enemy might be.
It is to Michael Moore’s credit that he recognizes this, although he does not fully appreciate it. There is, in Bowling for Columbine, a montage that suggests this; a series of talking heads on cable news channels, bleating the names of the enemies in their respective Foe-Glasses. Video games. Television. Mass-market media. Music. Rap music. Marilyn Manson. Bill Clinton. Satan. It’s an effective piece, and it tells the story not so much of the massacre but of the overwhelming, multifaceted, Hydra-headed public reaction to the massacre.
When Bowling for Columbine works, and it works occasionally, it is because Moore recognizes this concept and uses it. The title itself seems to indicate this. Apparently, the last thing that the despicable young men who committed this atrocity did with their pathetic lives before loading their weapons and preparing for bloodshed was to go bowling. Why not, Moore asks reasonably, blame bowling for the massacre? Why shouldn’t bowling be as culpable as Marilyn Manson for the deaths of the innocent students of Columbine? (”Maybe we could go somewhere and just eat a bunch of caramels.” “What?” “When you think about it, it’s just as arbitrary as drinking coffee.”)
This gives Michael Moore a lot of opportunity to make fun of sanctimonious, uptight, right-wing types. (Although, one wishes that he would take any of the other innumerable opportunities to do this and leave the poor folks of Littleton, Colorado alone.) If you’re in the right mood for it, this can be a source of harmless amusement, like watching little boys kill ants with a magnifying glass. Moore interviews members of the Michigan Militia (including an unindicted co-conspirator in the Oklahoma City bombing), har har har. Moore interviews a compassionate and thoughtful Marilyn Manson, hee hee hee. Moore pesters poor Charlton Heston in his home, huh huh huh.
All of this is meant to be funny, and (discounting my slightly-to-the-right-of-Atilla-the-Hun political philosophy) I guess it is. But really, all this does is show Moore’s terminal lack of talent. Bowling for Columbine is on about the same comic level as Jay Leno’s man-in-the-street gag. You take a camera out where the really dumb people are and wait for them to say dumb things, and you don’t have to wait very long. You can say lots of things about Michael Moore (”fat”, or “obnoxious”, or “repellant”, or “witless”, or “huge great bloody git”*) but you can’t call him talented, or creative, or groundbreaking, because he isn’t. He’s a marginally skillful filmmaker, trading on the generous credulity and liberal political leanings of overly-indulgent film critics.
This may sound like childish invective. Well, it is. But I have three complaints against Bowling for Columbine that I would like to share with you, complaints that have little or nothing to do with my political leanings or Michael Moore’s, but about the quality — or marked lack thereof — of the film.
The first is the easiest to spot. Bowling for Columbine is tasteless. It is easily one of the most tasteless movies of the year. And in a movie year that brought us Jackass and The Scorpion King, that’s a pretty serious charge to level. But it’s true.
One example. Why use the footage of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center? Why dub that footage with Louis Armstrong in the background, reaching a crescendo as the plane hits the tower? Because it reinforces his argument? Because it makes some kind of point? Because it’s necessary to the movie? No. It is there simply out of tastelessness - because Moore doesn’t know any better not to put it in, because he childishly thinks that’s the best way to shock and horrify the conservative part of his audience. (Moore is on record as criticizing the 9/11 terrorists for not targeting buildings in majority-Republican states.)
The second is that Bowling for Columbine is not honest. (This should come as no surprise; as Snopes.com said about Moore, “Some folks play fast and loose with the facts when they’ve an axe to grind”.) Without directly impugning Moore’s inane political beliefs, one can point to all sorts of dishonest bits in the movie. The close of Moore’s interview with Charlton Heston is one good example. (Michael, baby, we’ve seen Broadcast News.) Blaming my old boss George W. Bush and — of all people — Dick Clark for a tragic Michigan school shooting is another. I don’t really care that Moore is dishonest — he’s no more or less honest than, say, Oliver Stone — but he’s got low enough credibility with me; he doesn’t need to waste that on cheap lies.
The third, and fatal problem with Bowling for Columbine is its own lack of self-awareness. Moore recognizes that Columbine is a Foe-Glass for others, but fails to see that truth for himself. When Moore shows how others look at Columbine and how they assign blame to their demons, Bowling for Columbine is a dull-but-worthwhile satire. But when Michael Moore looks at Columbine and sees his own demons (nuclear weapons, American foreign policy, Republicans), he fails to recognize the need for self-parody.
This should come as no surprise. Moore has made what career he has at pointing out the ironies inherent in the alleged stupidity of others. But he presents his own lunatic point of view utterly without irony, or humor, or even the awareness that he is falling into the same traps he has set for others. What Bowling for Columbine is missing is the realization that Michael Moore is just as dim and deluded as the right-wing yobbos he so gleefuly sends up. Bowling for Columbine proves that, in his own way, Michael Moore is every bit the “Stupid White Man” that he proclaims others to be.
* Check out, if you will, what Jonah Goldberg has to say about Michael Moore: “noisome buffoon”, “bitter and twisted jerk”, “renowned bleeding heart”, “stinky”, “professional jackass”. I have a bachelor’s in invective; Goldberg has a doctorate, and good for him.