Bowling For Columbine Essay

1158 Words3 Pages

today’s society, there will always be some element of truth amongst the lies, from horror films based on “true stories” to documentaries that present opinion as fact. Award-winning documentary maker, Michael Moore uses a twisted version of the truth to bowl a strike and manipulate viewers into barracking for his team.
Moore’s 2002 film, Bowling For Columbine, successfully manipulates facts to convey only a single side of the American attitude towards gun related crime.
He convinced audiences across the globe that strict gun control was the only way to stop the extreme violence in the States. And why shouldn’t he? The issues he brings to light in this film are ones often swept under the rug by American society. .
Is it really so bad that …show more content…

Within his repertoire of films, the same message is continuously displayed throughout. Fahrenheit 911, and Capitalism: A Love Story, though nowhere near as successful as Bowling For Columbine, reiterate Moore’s distaste for the American government and ultimately promote his outlook on the current state of America.
In the most recent 2009 film, Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore was condemned for producing a “scornful, rambling, [and] repetitive,” film, in the eyes of Wall Street Journal film critic, Joe …show more content…

During this montage, Moore again throws us into an uncomfortable position, wherein we feel obligated to accept his perception of the truth as he has smothered us in real-life footage of a disaster that shook the world. By drawing both sympathy and empathy from his audience, Moore calls on the fresh pain of the event to strengthen his argument that the US is a fear-driven country driven by the constant and crippling need for weaponry.
It was a cunning yet unscrupulous choice to place footage of the 2001 bombing in a film made only a year later. The shaky footage creates an aura of fear and compassion from us, the viewers, as it is relatable and most of all real.
This poses the question: should we be so critical of Moore’s manipulative techniques and substantial amounts of prejudice as to disregard his films? Or should we accept his version of the truth on the grounds that Michael Moore’s films aim to change America for the

Open Document