Analysis of realism in film “Bowling for Columbine” Essay Example

an incident, a machine gun was accidentally attached to the back of a dog, which resulted in a fatal shot being fired and hitting the photographer. In an interview, a police officer was questioned about whether the dog could be held accountable for a crime. This question clearly expected an absurd answer since dogs cannot face legal charges. The officer was further asked to describe the appearance of the dog, to which he simply referred to it as "cute."

While at the shooting ground, Moore interviewed "Guardian Angel" individuals, seemingly ridiculing them by questioning the type of gun they possessed and inquiring about their social background. Moreover, he highlighted a distinction in social status as he stood apart from the men who were firing bullets while lying down. Moore, on the other hand, stood upright and was dressed differently, signifying his higher status despite having engaged in similar activities during his youth.

Moore interviews individuals who were expelled from Columbine High School for various reasons. However, he fails to include any interviews with students who were not expelled and performed well in their exams. The reason behind this omission is that such a narrative would not make for an engaging story. By focusing on two men who were expelled, the film portrays the school in a negative light and suggests that there were many other individuals with similar tendencies to the perpetrators of the tragedy in the surrounding area. Additionally, in most of the interviews shown in the film, Moore does not reveal the questions he asks, giving viewers only the responses provided by the participants.

In essence, it is uncertain what "Moore" has asked the individuals. It

is possible that he said something annoying or previously posed several questions leading to a foolish comment. The film excludes any foolish remarks from "Marilyn Manson," who the audience would anticipate more from. However, this is because "Moore" agrees with Manson's views, leaving no criticism to be made towards him.

Despite the negative effects shown on policemen when they are present at scenes of high violence in towns, no editing is made in the interview and all the questions asked by "Moore" are heard. For instance, when a road is closed by the police in an attempt to catch a fugitive, "Moore" expresses more concern about not being able to see the "Hollywood" sign due to the pollution affecting air cleanliness.

The policeman's lack of response in a situation like this only adds to his perceived stupidity. In the scene where "Moore" interviews a man connected to the Oklahoma Bombing, the man's house is shown filled with pills and files on his worktop. This raises questions about the man's sanity and why he has so many medication bottles in his kitchen. The man's behavior becomes even more concerning when he shows "Moore" his gun and even puts it to his head. Although the cameras do not capture this, "Moore" can be heard pleading with him not to do it and later describes the act. Furthermore, there is evidence that suggests the film is not as realistic as initially thought, as it frequently deviates from its initial focus on the Columbine tragedy and its connection to bowling. Instead, it spends a significant portion of time addressing other issues in American society today.

The section in which "Moore" informs the

audience about the number of deaths in various countries as compared to America exemplifies his failure to disclose the sources of his information. The film lacks references for his research, aside from the misleading interviews. "Moore" evokes emotions by presenting children who have been shot, eliciting sympathy from the audience, unlike when he describes the deaths of adults.

The film "Bowling for Columbine" incorporates Juxtaposition by delving into the clash between "Charlton Hesston," leader of the Guns Society, and a grieving father whose child fell victim to the Columbine tragedy. At first glance, this documentary is captivating. Yet, upon closer inspection, it becomes apparent that several interviews and assertions made by "Moore" lack factual basis, contradicting the fundamentals of honest documentary filmmaking. Consequently, this casts skepticism on what we can genuinely trust in today's society.