In his previous work as filmmaker, TV presenter and author, Michael Moore has tended to probe big business and the American Right, but in his new, Cannes-pleasing film 'Bowling For Columbine', it is the USA's obsession with gun violence which Moore has firmly in his sights - although he still manages to get in the odd potshot at his usual targets. Taking as his starting point the 1999 killing spree at Columbine High School, Moore tries to determine just what it is about Americans that makes them want to shoot one another.
Much of Moore's success as an interviewer rests in his demeanour: large, jovial, and - let's face it - homely, he seems more like a friendly neighbour or favourite uncle than an investigative journalist, so that his subjects are easily disarmed by his simple yet confronting questions. He is also bullishly persistent, refusing to leave his marks alone until he has got the answer he wants. In the early parts of the film this interviewing style enables him to coax extraordinary admissions from his subjects; but by the end of the film Moore loses his grip, bullying and browbeating his interviewees to no obvious purpose. No doubt National Rifle Association president Charlton Heston's political views are unreconstructed, but in the confrontation with him which forms the film's climax, Moore comes across as unfocussed, incoherent, and somewhat hysterical.
'Bowling for Columbine' is ultimately a very uneven film. Moore's scattergun approach ensures that the audience's interest remains engaged, but it also makes his thesis become more and more confused as the film goes on. He wields well researched statistics and archival footage to argue compellingly for all manner of positions - e.g. that gun ownership need not lead to gun violence, that the US media provokes groundless fear of black males, that welfare-to-work programmes are exploitative and bad for communities - but it is not in the end clear what conclusion we are to draw from all this.
To my mind Moore's biggest mistake, most evident in the last third of the film, is to imagine that he is himself the most important part of his story. While his publicity stunts, his unannounced foot-in-the-door interview tactics, and his righteous tantrums may all make for diverting drama, they reflect poorly on him as a journalist. 'Bowling for Columbine' is very entertaining; but shouldn't a documentary be a little more than that?
Much of Moore's success as an interviewer rests in his demeanour: large, jovial, and - let's face it - homely, he seems more like a friendly neighbour or favourite uncle than an investigative journalist, so that his subjects are easily disarmed by his simple yet confronting questions. He is also bullishly persistent, refusing to leave his marks alone until he has got the answer he wants. In the early parts of the film this interviewing style enables him to coax extraordinary admissions from his subjects; but by the end of the film Moore loses his grip, bullying and browbeating his interviewees to no obvious purpose. No doubt National Rifle Association president Charlton Heston's political views are unreconstructed, but in the confrontation with him which forms the film's climax, Moore comes across as unfocussed, incoherent, and somewhat hysterical.
'Bowling for Columbine' is ultimately a very uneven film. Moore's scattergun approach ensures that the audience's interest remains engaged, but it also makes his thesis become more and more confused as the film goes on. He wields well researched statistics and archival footage to argue compellingly for all manner of positions - e.g. that gun ownership need not lead to gun violence, that the US media provokes groundless fear of black males, that welfare-to-work programmes are exploitative and bad for communities - but it is not in the end clear what conclusion we are to draw from all this.
To my mind Moore's biggest mistake, most evident in the last third of the film, is to imagine that he is himself the most important part of his story. While his publicity stunts, his unannounced foot-in-the-door interview tactics, and his righteous tantrums may all make for diverting drama, they reflect poorly on him as a journalist. 'Bowling for Columbine' is very entertaining; but shouldn't a documentary be a little more than that?