An Analysis of Michael Moore's Documentary, Bowling for Columbine

Bowling for Columbine is a documentary about how guns are a bad influence and pollute the mind, rather than supplying safety, which is the real reason behind the possession of a gun being legalised. Michael Moore, the film maker, wrote and produced the film to emphasise his point on why guns should never be sold or purchased again. The main story Moore focused on was one that was absolutely shocking and could astonish you from start to finish: The Shooting at Columbine High School. The ordinary and average school was put through an attack by two absent minded children who destructively killed 1 teacher and 12 students, not including the many more they injured. Moore also tried interviewing people whose lives had been affected due to guns. His aim for making the entire film was to put forward a good argument as to why people need such lethal weapons and show us what has happened due to the lack of concern for guns and ammunition.

Moore’s documentary could be looked at from several points of view in many different ways, but my attention focused on two very different points of bias: His research and interviews. Moore picked out very efficient stories that included tragedies and the loss of loved ones, to have such an immense effect on people. Many people could argue with me that his choice of research was not biased, but merely pointing out important facts people should know. I think otherwise. Moore has access to publish any story he felt necessary to emphasise his message clearly but evidently chose one that would give an immediate reaction towards its audience. He circled his film around guns being in the possession of children who would either find or locate a gun in their guardians’ homes, for an objective such as, bringing t...

... middle of paper ...

...red to what really goes on due to guns. I say this because the song is the exact opposite of what the pictures are telling us. He also manages to get a description from people about what they think has caused gun rate to rise, for example, music, films, even internet.

In my own opinion, Moore’s message should not have been one that was a bold statement, ‘Guns are bad, get rid of them!’ but a message that shows concern towards the possession of a weapon, for example, ‘Guns can save lives, just make sure you use them at the right time.’ The second message would have gotten more people to agree with Moore and his film, letting people consider where to put guns, how they feel about them and if they are being used for anything other then self defence. I feel Moore’s aim has been achieved and he has out forth a good side to an argument which has been fully answered.