Michael Moore is the reigning minister of propaganda for a vocal group of self-loathing Hollywood liberals. His movies are committed to shoehorning whatever subject he is covering into fitting his neo-Marxist worldview, a view which appears driven by the belief that everyone without certain advantages (white skin, money) is a victim. Not only are they all victims according to Moore, but their plight is entirely the responsibility of an all white, all male power structure that controls America. Like Marx, Moore is eloquent as he demonizes this nebulous evil conspiracy. Also like Marx, he is all criticism and no construction, never offering any potential solution to any problems, just a lot of slander for capitalism and an oversimplification of circumstances that talks down to the causes he seeks to champion. Moore gives liberals a bad name, pandering to the lowest common denominator of liberal pushover, the 'liberal without a cause,' an upper-middle class type with plenty of liberal guilt and a thirst for attention. Moore spoon-feeds these people by eliminating data and facts from the story, replacing them with anecdotal evidence and laying blame at the feet of the right-wing conspiracy for easy digestion.

               One of the problems with Michael Moore is that he is more insidious than people realize. He deals with emotional issues, however, when things get too serious, he is quick to drop everything, take a few laughs and treat the subject as comedy rather than with any sort of due diligence. You cannot have it both ways. When Moore juxtaposes his propaganda with extremely powerful, saddening and shocking video (in Bowling for Columbine this includes silent school security video of students running in terror during the Columbine massacre), he entirely crosses the line from comedy to politics. Imagery this powerful demands fair and respectful treatment. Unfortunately his treatment is superficial and agenda driven as Moore voices over comments relating the footage to everything from Clinton’s involvement in Bosnia to Moore’s problems with the news media; thus his use of the video appears exploitative. This how Moore operates- he prefers to use powerful video to hide the fact that he cannot construct a cogent argument, he prefers to ambush-interview celebrities loosely affiliated with an issue instead of interviewing those making the decisions who could give him answers. He prefers to ignore empirical data, instead preferring anecdotal evidence gleaned from crafty publicity stunts- usually first person interviews with people who are then often made representatives of entire nations.

               Bowling for Columbine is unmistakably the Michael Moore show though this is not surprising given his penchant for sensationalism. Moore is in almost every shot, including interviews. Other documentary-makers interview from behind the camera but Moore is often placed in the center of the screen. Moore launches into his trademark calculated tirades and confrontations with celebrities, thinly veiling his anger when those he interviews do not provide him with an adequately deep defense of the status quo. However, while being adept at magnifying the lack of depth in an off-the-cuff response to his assault, what I find equally glaring (and hypocritical) is the lack of depth he himself gives possible answers. As I said before, he is all criticism, no construction.

On Gun Violence:

               The main theme of Bowling for Columbine is gun violence in the United Staets. In the movie, Moore raises interesting, serious questions like: Americans have the 'right to bear arms'- not 'right to bear guns'- 'Arms' is a relative term and could mean knives; it could mean atomic bombs. American society agrees that citizens should be able to own pocket knives but not atomic bombs. Why are citizens allowed to own, ak-47's, which are military weapons designed to kill people? When Moore raised this question, one hoped for a lesson on the legislation and history that has led to the current status quo. It was never dealt with. He later raised the provocative question of why, as Canadians own nearly as many guns per person as people in the US, have the same appetite for violent video games, Hollywood movies and count many alienated teenagers as citizens, they have 1/10th the amount of deaths from gun violence. There are some interesting hypotheses out there- perhaps there is a link between urban poverty and gun violence- yet, no hypothesis was ever ventured. Instead, Moore gets his answer by interviewing a few Canadians that he met at a bar, at a taco bell and at their office (a politician). He then took their anecdotal experiences and impressions and concluded with heavy-handed innuendo that this small sampling of people fairly represented the entire nation of Canada. Moore then concocts the idea, devoid of any support besides this anecdotal evidence, that Americans are more violent because we live inside of a belligerent nation where the government and media conspire to keep us living in constant fear as part of their profiteering conspiracy agenda. He later elaborates on this theory to include the idea that it is only white people who live in constant fear and that, in fact, all white people live in constant fear of black people.

               His treatment of Canada is illustrative of his motives in the movie. Moore tells us that Canada has just as many guns as the United States so the problem is not one of gun proliferation- and then spends about a third of the movie detailing the exploits of the NRA. Michael, if gun proliferation is not the root of gun violence as you “proved” with your time spent in Canada, why then do you ignore your “research” and spend a third of the movie detailing a public mechanism of gun distribution in the United States? The answer is of course that Moore likes to raise questions but not answer them because if he found out the correct answer it could dilute his ability to fill the void left by the question with more of his ulterior agendas. So, like a moth drawn to a light, Moore appears to be the lure of the celebrity interview with a Charlton Heston (head of the NRA) suffering from Alzheimer’s. Sure, it won’t bring answers, but Moore loves the press.

               Moore takes as a self evident fact that Americans all hoard guns and shoot to kill and the American gun culture that he displays exclusively is the rural, gun-hoarding Michigan Militia gun culture. As a few Canadians met on the street are used to represent Canada, Charlton Heston, Timothy McVeigh's childhood friend and the Michigan Militia are made to represent a fair sample of gun owners in the United States (and it is implied that they also represent the root of all gun violence in the United States). Thus, the questions that Moore never answers are glaring. For starters, the people who hoard the guns and who he skewers during the entire movie- the Militia types- account for a small fraction of US Citizens, and a small fraction of gun violence in the United States. A much larger percentage of gun violence takes place in the inner city and is black on black gun violence. The latest, 2000 figures from the National Center for Health Statistics show that of 10,801 gun homicides in the U.S., 2,900 (a little more than one-fourth) involved whites; seven in 10 involved blacks and Latinos. Yet, Moore tells Oprah (ABC, 11/8/02) that the result of all the suburban gun-buying is that "the majority of murders" are "between white people." This is clearly false. In a movie entirely dedicated to gun violence in America, Moore never once deals with gun violence in the inner city as a problem- in fact, he goes beyond this to belittle it as a figment of the overactive white American’s imagination. The statistics are overwhelming- nine out of ten blacks murdered with a gun are shot by another black. Blacks account for over 50% of gun homicide deaths in the United States despite measuring less than 15% of the population. To walk away from this dramatic, obscene violence in the movie seems akin to ignoring smoking in a movie about the causes of lung cancer- the omission of such a glaring fact is so significant that it draws into question the underlying motives and sincerity of the filmmaker.

               Why do blacks shoot each other at such a higher rate than whites? That is an interesting question. That is a question that answering would bring us closer to a solution to the problem- but it receives zero treatment. Rather, Moore states throughout the movie that the media misleads the public into believing that the inner city is unfairly violent. Of course, he does not use any statistics to support his point but instead he "proves" his point by walking around a moderately dangerous neighborhood on the outskirts of south central LA during the middle of the day while it is nice and sunny out accompanied by a camera crew to "prove" the safety of the neighborhood and show up the sensationalist media (coincidentally he stumbled upon a gun murder). Odd that black directors like Lawrence Singleton and rappers like Dr. Dre who are from South Central see a more violent LA than Moore does and lament the plague of black on black violence. But then again, as is abundantly clear in his movies, Moore is the star and through his rose-colored lenses, Moore knows best.

               This refusal to treat the subject of violence in poor, black neighborhoods is even more apparent during the Welfare to Work segment of the movie which followed the murder of one six year old by another six year old (black) in their first grade classroom. Moore finds that the mother of the child was bussed to a mall to work at two stores, one of which was owned by Dick Clark. Moore hears this and is on a mission that takes him immediately, no, not to interview the woman to ask her why she left her son alone in a house with guns lying around, of course not- a white celebrity must clearly be the root of the evil- so Moore is headed to LA to corner Dick Clark in a business meeting. Moore immediately shoves his camera into Clark’s face as he tries to leave his office in a minivan, and asks Dick about the shooting of a 6-year-old child in Michigan. Clearly Dick is saddened and does not appear very clear of the details. Moore goes in for the kill: "And her mother worked for your restaurant! She could not pay her bills because she did not make enough even though she took on a second job!" Now, she could have worked there for two weeks, light hours, making good money and it was her other job that didn't pay enough, we don't know the circumstances and I doubt that Moore does either, but Moore is on a mission. So there goes Moore, stuffing the camera in the minivan, satisfied that he has been able to drop his loaded question while Dick Clark expresses sadness and gives what appears to be an honest, reasoned response: that he doesn't know about the wage policy at that particular franchise nor is he familiar with the woman's particular situation. Dick Clark then tells the driver to leave and as the minivan is driving away, there is Moore, pleading loudly to a Dick Clark who clearly cannot hear him, "But Mr. Clark, this is for the children, I'm just trying to save children Mr. Clark, c'mon, you have so much, can't you take a look at these children in Flint with me?…" Though Clark clearly cannot hear him, the point Moore makes is clear: Dick Clark does not care. Perhaps, Mike, if you cared about children you would dig into what makes parents leave them alone in houses with 9mm handguns sitting on the kitchen table because, I have a hunch, it wasn’t Dick Clark who sneaked in and planted it there. Demonizing him for his plastic surgery? Reasonable. Attacking Clark for having his name on a restaurant that helps people on welfare out with jobs? Just sad.

Said UCLA professor Mike Males, “Moore interrogates National Rifle Association president Charlton Heston over gun proliferation. Enthusiastic audience hosannas, but to what purpose? Moore admits Canadians also own lots of guns but don't perpetrate our level of slaughter. And if he wanted answers, the NRA's legislative director would be the one to grill… Moore badgers impresario Dick Clark for owning restaurants that hire welfare-to-work program recipients at low wage. More audience applause, but why? Moore earlier claimed poverty and unemployment don't cause American's gun carnage. And why hound an ignorant celebrity when he could have gotten better answers by calling out Michigan's welfare director?” Why? Because as is made abundantly clear, Moore is far more interested in publicity stunts and puffball pieces that allow him to push his agenda than digging in and finding out answers. Moore didn’t appear to care about the shooting because a six year old boy died as much as he cared that the restaurant the boy’s mother worked for was owned by Dick Clark. 

More on Moore’s exploitative filmmaking:

               In one scene in Bowling, Moore takes two students shot during the Columbine shootings with bullets purchased from KMart still in their bodies and brings them to the Kmart headquarters to "return the bullets." He also brings the press and turns the day into a spectacle. We are forced to stare at a wheelchair-bound teenager dwarfed by Moore as Moore bangs his fist and demands to see someone who runs purchasing for Kmart. The children never said anything. At one level they were powerful human survivors but in Bowling they appear to be merely props that Moore uses to make a movie. In the end, Kmart, cowed by the spectacle, agrees to stop selling handgun ammunition. A few months later, despite their implied collusion in the giant right wing conspiracy to keep Americans living in fear, Kmart went bankrupt.

               Moore often makes points by stating an opinion (usually anti-government) and then not providing evidence in support but showing a montage of disturbing historical blunders that the US was somehow associated with. The Iran Contra affair in the early 80’s was a case of bad judgement but it is unlikely a reason for the Columbine massacre as Moore would have you believe. There is, of course, no treatment whatsoever of all of the US' humanitarian efforts overseas over the years, nor the entirely different political environments under which those events took place. Rather, according to Moore's footage, all American bombs kill civilians. From the pictures he uses, all of these civilians are women and children. One example of him stuffing his anti-government conspiracy theory down your throat under the aegis of seeking the truth behind Columbine is that "largest day of bombing in the war in Kosovo" was on the day of Columbine. He implies that Columbine was blown out of proportion as part of the government/media conspiracy to avoid analysis of what we were doing in Kosovo. When we went into Kosovo we stopped the second largest genocide in history. As a result of that heavy bombing we saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ethnic Albanians from murderous death-squads led by Milosovic. Clearly that is why the students attacked other students in Columbine. If you ask me, this is another example of his exploitative methods. When he advances this conspiracy theory it proves nothing and demeans the lives of the Albanians that we saved by going in and dropping those bombs. It demeans the memory of those Albanians who Milosovic killed in their sleep.

In Conclusion:

The worst thing is that it seems that Moore’s heart is in the right place and it is people like him who help keep the government honest. It is unfortunate that he chooses to apply his considerable wealth, resources and Hollywood network towards superficial projects that seem more concerned with winning and Oscar and padding Moore’s resume and wallet than with projects that could potentially help solve a problem.