Bowling for Columbine

3253 Words14 Pages
* First Reading-Political-Conservative Reading of Bowling for Columbine Clearly it can be said that bowling for Columbine is pure Liberal propaganda that plays on people’s emotions with cheap editing, guerilla interviews and twisting of facts, Moore may claim he’s not a documentarian but he sure did accept the Oscar for it. Michael Moore’s documentaries are in tune with the definition of guerilla film making, his down to earth approach place him on the same level with the average American viewer, even though he is the so called typical rich fat white man that is supposedly responsible for all our problems. His documentary which according to IMDB earned $24 Million is a controversial work in that it challenges the so called American gun culture and problem. The documentary Bowling for Columbine is a disgrace in that it disrespects the conventions that we demand from documentary, to be informed with fact; the only convention it may follow is that the documentary serves as self-satisfying entertainment to the liberal left-wing politicos and their anti-gun anti-responsibility agendas. A constant message throughout this documentary is that because some mentally challenged teens shot up a school and killed 15 students the 80 million responsible gun owners who handle over 300 million firearms in the US are somehow responsible (2011 Gallup Firearms Survey). Give credit where credit is due Moore did an outstanding job in selecting the most stereotypical, moronic and entertaining “pro-gunners”. Frederick smith of the Fox daily bulletin criticized Moore’s choice of psychopathic Nichol brother who was acquitted of charges in relation to the Oklahoma City Bombing. He stated “Moore’s choice of interviewee in regards to gun violence is absurd, and totally politically motivated, by choosing this one un-stable man he is generalizing and that is dangerous”. There is doubt that

More about Bowling for Columbine

Open Document