catapult magazine

I don’t know what all you film nuts think about Michael Moore, but i just saw his new film, “Bowling for Columbine”, which is an interesting exploration of guns, crime, gun laws, fear, violence, America, and the NRA. Anybody else seen it? What did ya’ll think?

I have a VCR now so I just saw “Bowling for Columbine”. I liked it better than I thought I would, probably because my expectations were pretty low. There were some really good questions (and some really strange connections). The film really revealed the spirit of fear pervading America. I think Americans really do feel like they have to protect their “treasure”, whether that be the rich defending their material possessions and family members or the government wanting to protect our freedoms with military strength. America puts so much stock in being at the top of the competition. Perhaps the by-product of that is constant fear of losing it all. Jesus says something about this connection in the Gospels—the curse and challenge of riches (I think it’s in the parable of The Sower) and why the rich are so strapped with worries that it is difficult for them to hold onto their faith in God’s Kingdom.

Oh, but I am a bit confused by the title. I know Moore kept talking about bowling in order to mock the way people tried to connect Columbine to Marilyn Manson and video games and America’s violent history etc. but could someone explain the “Bowling for…” part of “Bowling for Columbine”?

As I understand it, “Bowling for…” is part of Moore’s “reductio ad absurdum” argument against connections between Columbine and Manson, etc. The students who shot up Columbine went bowling before school on the day of their shooting spree. Apparently, they liked bowling, as a couple student interviews revealed. His question, then, is why not blame their crime on bowling? I think the lyrics of the song at the beginning go: “Some people say…bowling alleys gotta be blamed…”

Yeah, you make a good point about fear in relation to wealth and prosperity. I think, though, that Moore does a better job of raising the question of fear in American than answering it. Part of the reason he misses the answer is that, as he says in an interview included on the DVD, he believes in the basic goodness of all men.

So the “Bowling for…” is meant to suggest “Bowling before…” as in “Bowling ’fore Columbine”?

I understand the way he’s making fun of the connections we try to make after Columbine, but I still don’t get why Moore shows himself bowling at the end as if he’s doing it in memory of Columb…Oh, ok. How about this? Maybe he can’t find a way to get to the answer he’s looking for at the end, the final connection, so all he can do is the most irrational non-connected thing possible—go bowling. So that’s why the title doesn’t make sense. It’s meant to show a certain irrationality. Moore is bowling for Columbine, but the “for” doesn’t really make sense. ‘Cause, after all, how can Moore’s act of bowling help Columbine in any way? It’s as if his whole film in the end, with its open questions that have no answers, is a meaningless game performed “…for Columbine”.

I wasn’t sure what to do with the “for” either. I agree that " ‘fore" Columbine isn’t very satisfying. I thought it might connect with his search for the reason Columbine happened, which would make it soemthing like, “Bowling for the reason for Columbine.” But this makes little sense. Somehow he meant to highlight the irrationality of common explanations. So, yeah, I think you’re on the right track with a meaningless game “for Columbine.” The connection is just that ridiculous, as ridiculous as other connections we commonly make.

Maybe it’s meant as:

] Bowling For Columbine[/i:60e36fa31b]