Moore hits home with Columbine

Bowling for Columbine is the most amazing, intense, hilarious, sarcastic, poignant film of 2002. Screw it -- stop reading the review and just go see the movie right now.

Reading through review after review from newspapers all over the country, I would come to the conclusion that Columbine is a mixed bag. This is completely untrue. Critics are overlooking the point of the movie and attacking the filmmaker over the content of the film. What kind of an arrogant person feels the need or has the right to do that?

In a nutshell, Bowling for Columbine is a documentary about the gun issue in America. Filmmaker Michael Moore starts with the incident at Columbine High School and proceeds to ask questions like why and how this tragedy occurred.

But the movie covers much more ground than that. Moore goes beyond the gun issue and brings up the idea of fear in America. He trashes all major media views on why kids resort to killing each other in schools. On top of this, he goes after U.S. foreign policy making a perfect circle. By linking all of these together, he paints a picture of what our country has become. This movie could not have been released at a better time. As we sit on the verge of war with Iraq, we must ask ourselves all the same questions that this film raises.

Before attacking the critics, let us look at what the film has to offer. Moore has a very distinct style. He somehow manages to get interviews with key figures in his movies, and he does not shy away from the tough questions. This always results in very sarcastic, cynical commentary. Whether the interviewee gives their honest opinion or walks away from Moore in disgust, you can't help but laugh nervously at how scary the situation is.

At one point, Moore goes to a missile production factory where a father of one of the Columbine shooters worked. He poses the question: What is the difference between these kids shooting up their schoolmates and their father making weapons of mass destruction? The interviewee frankly says, "I guess I just don't see that connection."

Another example is in the interview with John Nichols (Terry Nichols' brother). This man sleeps with a gun under his pillow and still believes the Oklahoma City bombing was necessary. When asked why he has so many guns, he replies, "Well, there are some real crazies out there."

Of course this all comes to a peak when Moore manages an interview with Moses himself, Charlton Heston. The interview does not last very long. Moore comes out with one of the main questions the film has been posing: Why is there such a huge gun problem in America? There is no easy answer, but Heston tries to brush it off with a few stupid statements. After a very racist remark and clear ignorance, Heston gets up, shakes Moore's hand and walks out. Moore gives Heston the opportunity to take back his statement and answer the question, but Charlton keeps on walking. As an added bonus, the interview was in Charlton Heston's house.

All of these interviews are great, and if you've seen a Michael Moore film (Roger and Me, The Big One), you'll know what they are like; however, Moore does so much more with this film. He takes what he does best, adds some brilliant observations, some found footage and ties it all up in a neat bundle.

Most media outlets have labeled violent movies, violent video games, the United States' bloody history and poverty as main reasons for school shootings. Moore shows that Japan has much more violent video games and movies, Germany has a much bloodier past, many other countries have poverty and Canada has the highest ratio of guns to people in the world --- but they all have a fraction of the shootings as America.

Next up, the timeliest piece of the film, a three-minute history lesson on U.S. foreign policy over the past 50 years. We go through the installation of the Shah of Iran, and then his overthrowing. We see U.S. involvement in Panama, Afghanistan, Egypt and all the resulting deaths. We find out how the Taliban and Osama bin Laden were supported by the United States in the 80s. And finally, we end with the World Trade Center collapse. Even a description of the sequence shows you how terrible a war with Iraq would be right now, but watching it is just intense and heart breaking.

I have spent a lot of time telling you how wonderful the film is, so why have critics been panning the film? (The Baltimore Sun gave it a mere two stars.) I think most critics are overlooking the point. Yes, we start with the gun issue, but the film covers so many other topics that gun violence takes a back seat. I would say the fear factor is the main point of the film. This includes America's fear of Islam and its need for a war with Iraq.

Critics are instead looking at Moore as a person. Yes, he is a personality. He becomes a part of his films. All of his films start with a little self-history of Moore himself and always link back to Flint, Michigan (his home town). This could be seen as self-serving, but I feel it is just his style. He knows Flint, and if that is what it takes to make his point, then let him do that.

Other critics say that the Heston interview at the end is a cop-out because Moore realizes he has no final answer. I don't think Moore was going out to actually answer these questions. If there was a solution, don't you think we would have fixed the problem by now?

This movie is not anti-NRA and this movie is not anti-America, even though most people feel it is. This film is against mass media, corporate globalization, George W. Bush and the war on Iraq. Does it give us easy answers? No. It actually poses even more questions. But it is impossible to walk out of this movie and not have something on your mind. It makes you think about the world you live in, something everyone should be doing in the first place.

For some it may be a huge eye-opener, for others it may be relief that now the rest of us can see what America is really up to. Whatever your final opinion is, there is no question that this is a film everyone should see.