Demosophia

The Whining Clown: A Review of Bowlng for Columbine

The following is my contribution to the growing collection of critical reviews of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, the most broadly known work in the excitingly popular new field of "whining-clown political commentary." This first section recounts my impressions as I watched the movie, but to be honest I just gave up trying to make sense of the thing after the whacky American History Cartoon. The second section of the review involves a more fundamental question about the work: the film is not about social violence in the US, but is an attempt to hijack that issue in order to borrow some legitimacy for what is basically an anti-liberal and anti-American agenda.

So the CD opens with a black and white sequence about bowling and a queston depicted in large block letters: "Are we a country of gun nuts? Or are we just nuts?" And while you might expect the film to have some answer to that question by time the credits roll you'll find that there isn't much substance, either to the question or the answer. The film is designed to reinforce and amplify prejudices, and it has no intention of enlightening along the way. Moreover, this is far from the only deception in this "documentary."

Another false impression I adopted by assuming Moore had some conception of substance was to buy into the premise implied by the title of the film, that it would have something to do with Robert Putnam's book Bowling Alone. Putnam's thesis is that "associational life" in America is declining. In fact Francis Fukuyama touches on this theme as a possible explanation for the growth in homicides and murders, in his book The Great Disruption. But in fact, as controversial as Putnam's theories are (and some make a credible argument that Putnam has it wrong, and that the US is still far ahead of most industrialized nations in both the quality and quantity of its associations), Moore doesn't seem nostalgic for a lost America of bowling clubs. The title is a mere pretense. Moore seems to be arguing, in his characteristically muddled way, that whatever is wrong with America was always wrong with America. Just a little more so, now.

If you couldn't tell that he hates "The United States of America" simply by the mocking tone he uses for the words in the overture to the film, you might guess as he inexplicably refers to the "bombing of another country whose name we can't pronounce" as just another mundane activity in an ordinary day in the good old USA, during the opening montage. So, is it? Just another activity in an ordinary day? Are we that jaded and evil? Isn't it the case that the bombing in Eastern Europe was designed to frustrate and halt the persecution of Muslims, because the Western Europeans shrugged off the genocide? If that's an ordinary day for us, then what the heck is up with France and the other enlightened Euros, who can't be troubled to oppose genocide in their own back yard? Is this the sort of reform that Moore suggests we emulate here? Is this what would earn his approval? I can think of only four instances where we might have bombed a country recently, and I'm not tongue-tied pronouncing their names. Somalia (though not really 'bombed") and Afghanistan are four syllables to be sure, but my three-year-old nephew can pronounce them just fine. And the Sudan and Iraq are only two really simple syllables. I think my neighbor's dog can bark them, without much coaching. So who is Michael talking to, and mightn't they need speech therapy?

I'm 12 minutes into the movie when Nichols gives his "blood in the streets" speech... at which point Moore makes the eminently reasonable suggestion that a nonviolent approach might be more effective. OK, this actually looks sincere. (It is, I think, one of the few sincere moments in the movie.) I mean, I'm not prepared to see Nichols as a typical American, so as long as Moore doesn't require me to make that leap I'm alright with hanging the mass murderer's brother out to dry. But, is this a movie about nutcases? I thought it was about social violence? Oh yeah, that opening queston "Or are we just nuts?" So, I guess I am required to make the leap that Nichols is, in some sense, a typical American. Nope, I don't buy it. I know a few nuts like him, but only a very few. And my grandfather was Cattleman of the Year, and I have an in-law who was Cowboy of the Year, more than once. Well, I take that back. I really don't know anyone as crazy as Nichols. I've just heard about them. So if crazy people like that are rare in cowboy country, I have to assume they're not crawling out of the woodwork on every streetcorner.

The first 10 minutes of the film have been nothing much, beyond an odd little episode in the bank, and an absurdly cute master-murdering pooch. The scenes in the barber shop and with the militia might actually be sort of endearing. The whole thing might serve as a runup to a decent documentary that seriously investigates America's violence, without denigrating the whole society, except for Moore's ridiculously condescending tone of voice as he tediously telegraphs every not-so-carefully-crafted irony. It's as though he expects his audience to be composed of children, or adults too stoned to know what day it is. So, who is he talking to? This is about as heavy handed a treatment of humor as I have ever seen. Why do we even need the sophomoric voiceover to begin with? It's decidedly unfunny. He needs to scrutinize more SNL, or Monty Python. And The Kids in the Hall would be way over his head. Funny? To whom? This got an Academy Award? This??

Twenty minutes into the film and he drives home the fact that Nichols is nuts by having him expose the weapon he hides under his pillow. And there are some "troubled teens" like Brent and DJ with their Anarchists Cookbook, from Oskoda, Michigan where "the planes that dropped 20% of all the bombs dropped in the Gulf War took off from." What does this have to do with social violence? I mean, other than the simple-minded connection that the US is a violent war mongering country that communicates those war mongering values to its youth, who happen to live in the vicinity of military bases. Oh... I get it. Yeah, that's subtle. Real subtle. Like an elbow in the eye.

But what about Eric and what's his name's home life? I mean, if IQ differences are mainly produced by child rearing practices and other risk factors in the home, as researchers like David J. Armor contend, then why are we looking at towns with military bases as the cause of social violence? My cousins grew up on military bases, not just near them, and their religious training and other in-home values made them peaceful, creative and loving people, with a father who was a war hero to whom Ernie Pyle devoted the better part of a chapter in Brave Men. My cousin, Bruce Talkington, won an Emmy for children's cartoons he produced for Disney, including Winnie the Pooh. Why isn't there a theory that military bases produce creative genius, and loving people?

Anyway, apparently Mike's environment didn't produce a great social theorist. And film genius is in the eye of the beholder. Which reminds me, who does Mike have in mind as this film's beholders, because he sure employs that kindergarten-teacher voice modulation as though he's afraid we'll miss something. I've never seen an artist with less faith in his audience.

Next comes another video montage that shifts seamlessly from people firing guns in recreational settings to a sudden and shocking presentation of people (one presumes Americans) commiting suicide and murder. So what's the theory? That recreational gun use leads to suicide and murder? Is this an anti-gun movie again?

Littleton, CO. A scene at Lockheed Martin. And Michael says of the Lockheed executive he's about to interview, again using that incredulous kindergarten-teacher voice: "He told us that no one in Littleton, including the executives at Lockheed, could figure out why the boys at Columbine had resorted to violence." I thought we didn't know that? Are we supposed to take his theory about the military-social violence connection for granted now? When did he establish that? He implied it a lot, asserted it a few times, but did he ever bother to provide the slightest evidence? And immediately following this clumsily revealing voiceover he asks the execucive if he doesn't think the kids "say to themselves, well gee Dad goes off to the factory every day and, you know, he built missiles, uhh..., these were weapons of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction, and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?" Note the "uhh" as he transitions from "missiles" to "weapons of mass destruction." Is it possible he knows that this Lockheed Martin plant DOESN'T MAKE MISSILES THAT CARRY WARHEADS? In fact, if he had any doubt he could just lift his eyes a little to see a partially obscured banner on the wall refering to the factory's space exploration mission. The poor Lockheed executive looks more than perplexed. It's as though he's thinking to himself: "Well, why didn't you ask me if I see a connection between Lockheed's space projects and the science program at Columbine High?" That, at least, would have made sense.

And then we suddenly shift from that blatant misrepresentation to war scenes of people being shot and civilians being brutally murdered, with some more not-so-subtle subtitles listing America's crimes of complicity in such atrocities, as Louis Armstrong's gravelly voice sings, in the background, It's a Wonderful World. This is just like a Lina Wertmuller movie! What subtlety and profundity! But could you just try to make sense, Mike? I mean, sure, we know you think America is a crappy war mongering country, and lets assume you haven't misrepresented anything with the subtitled information. Let's assume that most of this stuff didn't have the cold war context that you've conspicuously omitted. Let's assume there was no context, and we allowed things like this to happen for no reason. Let's assume that some of it, like the bombing of Kosovo or the establishment of the No Fly Zones in Iraq, were not successful campaigns that saved lives. Let's assume all of that. The thing is, Mikey, you haven't established any real link between any of that and the Columbine shooting. NONE WHATSOEVER. So what's up? What are you doing? Are we nuts, or are you?

Much has already been written about the way Moore deals with Charleton Heston, so I'll only point out that the way Moore juxtaposes the noncontiguous speeches taking place in Littleton, presented as though Heston were duelling with the relatives of the Columbine victims, is an obvious cheap shot, and simply a blatant destortion of reality. The events weren't contiguous, taking place months apart. And the interviews with Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, are completely disingenuous. South Park is as irreverent toward the sort of self-congratulatory leftwing-bigotted politically correct rhetoric of Michael Moore and his followers as it is toward the small town mentality that Moore interviews them about. There's a growing group of self-confident conservatives that don't fall into the mold of ignorant nutcases like Nichols, that some have started to call "South Park Repubicans," because they appreciate the irreverent humor of Stone and Parker. And what's the point of this interview? Matt and Trey aren't his ideological kin. Is this relevant to the question of social violence, and if so in what way? Are we supposed to believe that the competition of getting into honors math drove Eric and Dillon to mass murder? The competitive pressure imposed on teens by adults? Seriously? I thought it was our foreign policy that did that to them? What is the social theory here? I'm confused? National Defense and competition for excellence cause mass murder? I mean, if this isn't just an ideological tract, what is it? An indictment of adults?

And again, most of the research into academic achievement suggests that what students bring to school, in the way of values and aptitudes they learned at home, is a lot more important than what they find when they get there. So we can probably just fire that pushy career counselor as long as we have parents who are competent at their job. Mightn't this also be true of other kinds of school behavior? So, why hasn't Michael devoted a single word to Eric and Dillon's home life? I guess it just doesn't fit his wrong-end-of-the-telescope social theories.

The interview with Marilyn Manson is interesting, and a lot more central to the social theory that's really at the core of the movie. According to Manson we're all being seduced by a "campaign of fear and consumption." (And even though he looks consumptive, he's not talking about tuberculosis.) According to Manson, if the powers that be can "keep everyone afraid" then "they'll consume." I guess he's just doing his part. But, in the first place I'm pretty sure that people who are afraid consume less than people who are secure, all else being equal. I know that a few people do impulse buying when they get nervous, but most people are fairly responsible. And anyway, if you really wanted to induce a behavior that helps the economy it'd probably be saving rather than consumption. And Marilyn does sorta make me want to put aside a little money for a rainy day.

But apart from that very fascinating question, does he mean there isn't anything to fear? Would it really just be "good times" if we didn't pay attention to the dangers in the world? Mightn't it be more accurate to say that neither Moore nor Manson, nor Chomsky for that matter, have any coherent response to calamity? So rather than deal with it directly they propose this sophomoric theory that it's all a plot to keep us buying soda pop?

Heck, I think I've finally figured out who the slow learners are that Moore is talking to as though he were a baby sitter. It's the folks that believe that sort of nonsense! It's the people that aren't paying attention enough to know that he hasn't done anything in this film but make implications, and even that only by way of radical distortions of reality as well as outright lies. And of course he has to use baby talk to make himself understood to such people. They clearly have a problem with plain English, and counting past ten.

Michael spends a lot of time shooting down various theories about what's wrong with Americans, in order to set up his thesis. And he ends this little obligatory segment with the central question, posed by the father of a Columbine victim: "What is it about us, that makes us so violent?" And they bat that question back and forth between them for awhile, like it's a tennis ball. If you had only just gotten off the turnip bus from Hollywood this morning, without having read any social science literature other than (possibly) Robert Putnam, you'd think there was some mystery. OK, let's assume there is for the moment. What does Mike propose?

What we get by way of a coherent theory is a completely idiotic little historical shiboleth, in the form of a cartoon. There's a long silly segment about the exploitation of the black population, during which he manages to not take notice of the fact that the folks Moore ought to most identify with, the folks who claimed there was nothing to fear in the 1860s and that Lincoln was just a Repubican War Monger (sound familiar), WOULD HAVE BEEN PERFECTLY HAPPY TO LEAVE A FEW MILLION BLACK PEOPLE IN THE GRIP OF CHATTEL SLAVERY FOR A FEW MORE GENERATIONS. Had George McClellan, the head of this anti-war movement, won the Presidential election of 1864 (as he nearly did), then slavery might have been prolonged until the turn of the century. But let's ignore that flat-earth quality of Mike's thesis that the US is ruled by irrational fear, and that the party would really get rolling in earnest if we were only a little less terrified. Let's pretend there's some merit to it, for the moment.
(see next section)

Posted by Demosophist at September 18, 2003 12:16 AM