today’s society, there will always be some element of truth amongst the lies, from horror films based on a “true story” to documentaries that present their opinion as fact. Award winning documentary maker, Michael Moore takes this idea and strikes hard with it.
In the 2002 film, Bowling For Columbine, Moore successfully produced a documentary that conveys only a single side of the American attitude towards guns.
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.
Similarly, true to traditional documentary form, Moore exposes the harsh truths that …show more content…
So, why should Bowling For Columbine be any different?
Comparable to the previously mentioned films, Bowling For Columbine portrays is a one-sided truth that unswervingly aligns with Michael Moore’s opinion. Although the arguments made in the film hold strong ties to the truth, his manipulation of the interviews, clips, and archival footage combine to make a downright prejudiced film. Yet, it still manages to convey a strong message.
However, unlike many other partisan documentaries, Moore doesn’t fully silence the opposing opinion. Instead, he includes the voice of the other side and juxtaposes it to echo his viewpoint. This clever and somewhat satirical technique leads to one of many attention-grabbing sections in the first half of the film.
The main stars of this thought-provoking segment are Charlton Heston, Hollywood legend, gun-enthusiast and president of the National Rifle Association at one of his pro-gun rallies. Alongside archival footage of an anti-gun rally that took place shortly after the Columbine
In the 2002 film, Bowling For Columbine, Moore successfully produced a documentary that conveys only a single side of the American attitude towards guns.
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.
Similarly, true to traditional documentary form, Moore exposes the harsh truths that …show more content…
So, why should Bowling For Columbine be any different?
Comparable to the previously mentioned films, Bowling For Columbine portrays is a one-sided truth that unswervingly aligns with Michael Moore’s opinion. Although the arguments made in the film hold strong ties to the truth, his manipulation of the interviews, clips, and archival footage combine to make a downright prejudiced film. Yet, it still manages to convey a strong message.
However, unlike many other partisan documentaries, Moore doesn’t fully silence the opposing opinion. Instead, he includes the voice of the other side and juxtaposes it to echo his viewpoint. This clever and somewhat satirical technique leads to one of many attention-grabbing sections in the first half of the film.
The main stars of this thought-provoking segment are Charlton Heston, Hollywood legend, gun-enthusiast and president of the National Rifle Association at one of his pro-gun rallies. Alongside archival footage of an anti-gun rally that took place shortly after the Columbine