Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Director:

Michael Moore

Writer (WGA):

Michael Moore (written by)

Release Date:

9 October 2002 (France)

Genre:

Documentary | Drama | History

Tagline:

Is America a nation of gun nuts? Or just nuts?

Plot:

Filmmaker Michael Moore explores the roots of America's predilection for gun violence.

Plot Keywords:

Gun | Violence | Fear | Firearm | Protest

Awards:

Won Oscar. Another 28 wins & 7 nominations

Cast

Jacobo Arbenz	...	Himself, President of Guatemala (archive footage) (as President Arbenz)
Mike Bradley	...	Himself, Mayor of Sarnia, Ontario, Canada
Arthur A. Busch	...	Himself, County prosecutor, Flint, Michigan (as Arthur Busch)
George Bush	...	Himself (archive footage) (as Bush)
George W. Bush	...	Himself, President of the United States (archive footage)
Michael Caldwell	...	Himself, police detective
Richard Castaldo	...	Himself, Columbine victim
Dick Clark	...	Himself, restaurant owner
Steve Davis	...	Himself, deputy sheriff (archive footage)
Ngo Dinh Diem	...	Himself, President of South Vietnam (archive footage) (as President Diem)
Byron Dorgan	...	Himself (archive footage)
Mike Epstein	...	Shopper in Mall
Joe Farmer	...	Himself, superintendent of schools (archive footage)
Mike Fasolo	...	Corporate Criminal (DVD only) (archive footage)
Denny Fennell	...	Himself, home security consultant
Barry Glassner	...	Himself, author of "The Culture of Fear" (as Prof. Barry Glassner)
John Harris	...	Himself (voice)
Dick Herlan	...	Himself (as Richard Herlan)
Charlton Heston	...	Himself, actor / NRA president
Jeremy Hicks	...	Himself, suspended student for wearing kilts (archive footage)
Ernest F. Hollings	...	Himself (archive footage) (as Senator Fritz Hollings)
Jimmie Hughes	...	Herself, principal of Buell Elementary School
Dick Hurlin	...	Himself, former producer of "Cops"
Amanda Lamante	...	Herself, Columbine student
Mary Lorenz	...	Herself, K-Mart official
Marilyn Manson	...	Himself, entertainer
Daniel Mauser	...	Himself (archive footage)
Tom Mauser	...	Himself, father of victim
Evan McCollum	...	Himself, Lockheed Martin public relations
Timothy McVeigh	...	Himself, Oklahoma City bomber (archive footage)
Carey McWilliams	...	Himself, blind gun owner (archive footage)
Gerald Miller	...	Himself, Welfare-to-Work creator (archive footage)
Michael Moore	...	Himself / Narrator
Mohammed Mossadegh	...	Himself, Prime Minister of Iran (archive footage) (as Prime Minister Mossadeq)
James Nichols	...	Himself, brother of Terry Nichols
Terry Nichols	...	Himself, Oklahoma City bombing accomplice (archive footage)
Manuel Noriega	...	Himself, President of Panama (archive footage)
Tamarla Owens	...	Herself, mother of boy who shot girl (archive footage)
Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi	...	Himself, Shah of Iran (archive footage)
Robert J. Pickell	...	Himself, sheriff of Flint, Michigan (as Sheriff Robert Pickell)
Augusto Pinochet	...	Himself, Chilean dictator (archive footage)
Jeff Rossen	...	Himself, FOX reporter (archive footage)
David Satcher	...	Himself (archive footage) (as Dr. David Satcher)
Nicole Schlief	...	Herself
David Smith	...	Himself, Sarah's husband (voice) (archive footage)
Susan Smith	...	Herself, child murderess (archive footage)
Matt Stone	...	Himself, former Columbine student
Mark Taylor	...	Himself, Columbine victim

Also Known As:

Bowling à Columbine (Canada: French title)
Bowling for Columbine (Germany)
Akiryhtos polemos (Greece) [el]
Benim cici silahim (Turkey: Turkish title) [tr]
Bowling a Columbine (Italy) [it]
Bowling for Columbine (Finland) [fi]
Bowling for Columbine (France) [fr]
Bowling for Columbine (Spain) [es]
Bowling for Columbine: Un país en armas (Argentina) [es]
Kóla, puska, sültkrumpli (Hungary) [hu]
Tiros em Columbine (Brazil) [pt]
Zabawy z bronia (Poland) [pl]

MPAA:

Rated R for some violent images and language.

Runtime:

120 min

Country:

Canada | USA | Germany

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby Digital

Certification:

Canada:14 (Nova Scotia) (re-rating on appeal) | Canada:14A (Alberta/British Columbia) | Canada:18 (Nova Scotia) (original rating) | Canada:AA (Ontario) | Canada:PA (Manitoba) | Italy:T | Brazil:12 | USA:TV-MA (cable rating) | South Africa:10V (DVD rating) | South Africa:13V (theatrical rating) | Argentina:13 | Australia:M | Denmark:11 | Finland:K-15 | France:U | Germany:12 | Hong Kong:IIB | Ireland:12 | Israel:PG | Netherlands:16 | New Zealand:M | Norway:11 | Peru:14 | Singapore:PG | South Korea:15 | Spain:T | Sweden:11 | Switzerland:12 (canton of Geneva) | Switzerland:12 (canton of Vaud) | Switzerland:14 (canton of Zurich) | Switzerland:14 (canton of the Grisons) | UK:15 | USA:R (certificate #39324) | Iceland:12

Filming Locations:

Auburn Hills, Michigan, USA

Company:

Alliance Atlantis Communications

Trivia:

Formerly highest-grossing documentary of all time. The highest-grossing documentary is now Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004), also by Michael Moore, which made more in its opening weekend than this movie did in its entire run.

Goofs:

Revealing mistakes: As Charlton Heston walks away from Michael Moore in the final interview, the scene cuts repeatedly between Heston (point of view from behind Moore) and Moore (point of view from the stairs directly in front of Moore) holding a photo of the slain Flint, Michigan girl and asking Heston to look at it. When the POV is of Moore holding the photo, there is clearly no cameraman anywhere behind him. The same with the POV of Heston, there is clearly no cameraman anywhere in front of Moore. So the two POVs were not filmed simultaneously as the film implies.

Quotes:

Michael Moore: The media, the corporations, the politicians... have all done such a good job of scaring the American public, it's come to the point where they don't need to give any reason at all.

Movie Connections:

Referenced in What Happens in Vegas (2008)

Soundtrack:

In The Hall Of The Mountain King

in the midst of all the libel, here's some food for thought...

Moore would have us believe he is a populist.

Moore would have us believe "Bowling For Columbine" is a documentary.

Moore would have us believe a lot of things.

Well, let me tell you what I believe. I believe this pseudo-documentary was nothing more than satirical hyperbole (I will explain hereinafter). His message is a very important one: no guns; I agree with it wholeheartedly. But did he need to indoctrinate millions of people with this factually selective putative "documentary"?

He's not committing treason here. He's overtly trying to change his country for what he perceives to be the better.

Before I even get into the film, I want to get into my bete noire when it comes to this film and Moore (bete noire in that this is something I hate it, not fear). And that bete noire would be the flak and indignation this film receives from all the right wing extremists (I'm not on the left neither; I think people who only see two choices when it comes to politics are veritably myopic). Their censorious remarks aside, Moore has clout with the common everyday pauper. The people who are not abreast to politics or foreign policy, who are not very topical, who are apathetic towards history, are, quite possibly, the ones who swallow Moore and his ideologies wholly (perhaps, because they don't know the putative "facts" that Moore points out to be otherwise). They may very well be his target audience. It's won an Oscar, copious amounts have been sold, the whole nine. Funny how Moore has a large fan base and did so with the usage of factually selective, hyperbolical, indoctrinating propaganda. The very same tools politicians use. Moore is a smarter populist than he appears to be. See how hypocritical those politicians screaming with indignation about "Bowling For Columbine" seem now?

Right, now back to the movie. Anyone who watches this movie must realize how sententious it is. And Charlton Heston is not the racist Moore made him out to be (he was marching with Martin Luther King in days of yore, before it became de rigueur). Moore chopped up his speeches (you can see him wearing two different suits, hint hint, wake up people).

He made all kinds of intimations, some of which were bordering on ridiculous (NRA and KKK in cahoots has been proven as fraudulent). All sorts of fabrications in this movie have you wondering if this is a documentary or some pinko's parody on the United States.

However, that's not to say this film wasn't well done. The production was sublime. The messages were conveyed in a manner that was very lucid. But this, obviously, is not a documentary.

The question is, though: is this what you're against? Anti-gun laws? Are guns necessary? If the constitution said it was every American's right to own a slave, would that make it ok to own a slave? Just because the constitution (written in days of yore, in times none of us could possibly ever identify with) says it is a right does not mean hurry to go buy that new desert eagle. Switzerland may have a law saying everyone must own a gun and they may have very low gun crime rates. But they don't have the image problem that most Americans have, they don't have the sort of animus among their own people that even guns can't mollify, so on and so forth.

I aver that what Moore did was a bit much. Heston is an honest man but now looks like a liar (he couldn't have cancelled the speeches, they were planned years in advance; besides, the festivities were cancelled). he turned a civil rights activist into a racist, a man that lobbied for and enforced strict gun laws into an irresponsible gun nut.

He called the bank weeks in advance to do the gun account clip; that's why he received the gun with no ample delays. The studio that produced it is from and in Halifax, so that "if it wasn't real, Americans wouldn't have made it" argument gets defenestrated (tossed out the window).

But, perhaps, this was needed; too many people embracing Bush with zealotry nowadays. Don't take your ire out on the message because you didn't like the not-so practical application Moore chose (and the message I mean: outlaw guns). I still, however, aver that these sort of films are necessary for they are iconoclastic and heretic. Not to mention that they help the balance (the propaganda from both the left and right is now a little more balanced).

Short and to the point: Moore only used the very same trickery all other putative populists use in the U.S. political scene. The medium Moore chose was apt. The only thing he did that may prove to be imprudent was title it as a documentary. Though many things may have been spurious, many politicians go on television with their own glib, using the same techniques Moore did (trickery). So how come they can get away with it but Moore can't? Neither one should get away with it, if you wish to be an objective judge about it. How can they call someone out for something they do as well? He may do so per pro the film medium, but conversely, there's propaganda politicians spew out everyday, only to pass it off as being objective and factual. I would suggest that those politicians, with whom Moore is now in a war of slander, debunk THEIR OWN trickery as well. It's only fair.

I doubt any of you "Bowling For Columbine" zealots have or will do any research to verify the many specious "facts" it depicts. It's an amazing movie, otherwise; very well done (notice I said 'movie', not documentary; this is hyperbole, folks). Watch it anyway.

- the G.O.D. (Chalaco)