Bowling For Columbine - Review

       Is it ethical to bring a picture of a six year old that was shot and killed to the president of the NRA’s house and put the blame on him? "Bowling for Columbine”, is a compelling documentary by Michael Moore. It is a very thought provoking movie that touches on many tough subjects for America. Specifically Moore is very concerned with the gun laws and attitude towards guns and violence in the USA. Moore thinks that America is run by a campaign of fear, he has many great examples of this: the Y2K event, the African bees, and the 911 attack, but the film mostly revolves around the Columbine massacre and the NRA. He carefully selected guest speakers that agreed with his views which helps motivate viewers that have yet to pick a side. Moore’s use of humour, music and short clips make the film an entertaining watch.

Moore’s interesting take on journalism takes him around Colorado as he focuses on controversial subjects. The subject he spends the most time covering is gun safety. Moore shows how simple it is to obtain a gun by opening an account at a bank and receiving a fully functional rifle for signing up. The fact that he can get a free gun and then get cheap bullets at the local K-Mart helps prove his point on how safe guns really are. The people he chooses to interview are also very specific to gun control. Especially the members of the NRA, National Rifle Association, whom have semi and fully automatic guns loaded in their houses. Moore really aims in on the NRA and their reactions to events such as the Columbine massacre and other school shootings, holding pro-gun rallies days after.

Although his techniques can be seen as unethical or immoral, Moore really gets to the heart of the problem by using similar propaganda as his opposition. In his uncomfortable interview with James Nichols, a suspect connected to a bombing in Oklahoma City, Moore asks odd questions but gets straight to the point. He tries to do this with every interview in the movie. He displays a very one sided view of problems within America and its foreign affairs. Even the way the interviews are edited is quite a captivating experience. They will start off with the introduction of Moore speaking to them and then cut to a clip of them to show why they are relevant to the documentary. After the clip he goes back to the interview. It holds the watchers attention throughout the film, which is hard to say about many movies.

This may not be the, “go out on Friday and watch it with your friends,” kind of movie, but it certainly is a very interesting take on certain problems pertaining to America. In my favourite part of the movie, Michael Moore interviews heavy metal icon, Marilyn Manson. In the wake of the Columbine Massacre people sought out something that they could blame for the tragedy. They blamed many things including drugs, video games, media, and even Marilyn Manson. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold listened to Manson, so people pointed fingers at him as the cause. But when Moore sits down and talks with Manson, he proves to be a very intelligent person, with many positive outlooks on what could have been done and what should have been done. Irony was a strong point in the documentary and I personally loved that moment. Even if you don't have time to watch the entire film, I recommend at least listening to the Marilyn Manson interview. It is an exceptional documentary and completely worth every minute watched, even if just to understand the references people make to it.

The Age of Entanglement Between Public and Private Personas

            "The idea that you can keep track of someone's life without them knowing you exist" is a thought explored in the article "The New Paparazzi" by Emma Teitel. The main subject in this article is that in this day and age, everyone is equipped with cameras and the technology to distribute them to the public easily. Teitel has done some very detailed research as she cites many sources and interviews with people on the subject. She is correct in the way she depicts the situation, every moment someone is in public they are vulnerable to the fact that their actions can be put online.

Teitel accurately portrays the situation at hand; that “digital cameras have become a house-party staple” now, although it is mostly teenage girls being the “serial camera carriers.” Many interviews with young adults/teenagers have shown the exact same problem, “Generation Y is obsessed with documenting its social life.” The fact that one way or another “the event will be photographed and eventually uploaded is [inevitable]” today, because “everyone has [a] cellphone.” Facebook and Twitter make an easy platform to distribute these pictures as well. Many people are finding apathy towards who sees what they have done, whether it is a friend or future employer. “The inclination of young people [is] to live in the moment” and not care about the future implications it can have.

Similarly people are exposed, whether they like it or not. The fact is, anyone can take a picture of someone else and upload it to social media without their consent. Although that may not be morally the right thing to do, doing “what’s appropriate … is incredibly hard to gauge in a photo-sharing age.” There is a harsh reality now that the only way to avoid having pictures such as these showing up on social media is “means avoiding the party altogether.” “Many people agree with the tabloid culture analogy” that everyone has a wide variety of their personal life on display to the public. This can be a positive situation, where it displays your positive events you’re involved in (sports, volunteering, etc), or detrimental to one’s public affiliations. Usually it’s the latter, pictures and statements of people “more concerned with telling secrets than keeping them.” 

 "The truth is that Generation Y doesn't care about it's privacy until it's been violated" is almost an understatement. People post stupid things of themselves and their friends without ever worrying about the consequences. The topic of staying anonymous is more important than that of keeping their own privacy. Teitel shares that she wanted to delete her Facebook account was "not when Sara Melvin posted over a hundred embarrassing photos of [her], but when [her] right to anonymously browse ... was temporarily jeopardized."

            I believe Teitel's article is fairly accurate when it comes to explaining the process of why there are so many scandalous photos of people out there. People are just apathetic when it comes to wanting privacy and are going to have to learn the hard way that employers really do care what kind of a person they are. The fact that so many teens these days can have their life documented completely online, on display for the world to see is a very alarming fact. Do we need to change what is happening in the world? Or is the world just going to evolve to adapt this new culture.