This documentary heavily revolves around the idea that the main cause of gun violence in America is due to so many American’s being immersed in a culture of fear. This matter is brought up by Rock Artist Marilyn Manson whos music was targeted by the media in the wake of The Columbine Massacre as a cause of the mass shooting. “It’s a campaign of fear and consumption” says Manson, “Keep the people scared and they will consume”. Moore seems to agree as he plays a montage of TV news headlines that blast viewers with images of crime after crime. This shows the viewer how Americans are not being shown the more important news story’s when a clip reveals “new speedbumps” being setup in a peaceful town in Canada.
The purpose of Bowling for Columbine was to show Americans and the rest of the world the violence and unfortunate deaths due to the allowance of guns for “self protection”. Michael Moore wanted to show the viewers the negatives of owning guns for self protection. There is only one point of view in this film, third person. He uses examples of little children being mistakenly shot and their families suffering. I think the target audiences for Bowling for Columbine are middle aged people to people who own guns for the sake of owning one.
It is hard to disagree with Goulding’s steadfast argument that the characteristics of the murder victims dictated the poor publicity of John Martin Crawford’s crime. He aptly defended his position with relevant quotations and cross analysis comparisons of similar serial killings in Canada that acquired more media attention (Goulding, pg 217). Goulding’s argument is further solidified, though not mentioned in his book, by the work of victimologists. Most victimologists would agree that a prime determinant of the public’s reaction to a crime would be the characteristics of the victim(s) (Karmen, pg 37). As Terry Hinz (the prosecuting lawyer of the John Martin Crawford case) suggested, the public
Bowling for Columbine Michael Moore's film Bowling for Columbine talks about guns control and its related violence, which arouse the attention to the public insecurity, media propaganda and government problems, the main argument of the film is that Americans already lost trust among each other, which cause the over control of guns compare to other nations. there are many impressive scenes in the movie that make people have a deep thought about what is wrong in the U.S. by using various techniques of persuasion such as the use of ethos, pathos and logos. one techniques Moore uses is ethos or the ethical appeal, means convince an audience of the author's credibility or character. it's not hard to see, Moore well-used of interviews from both sides of the guns issue, from not only victims but also the related association to build a full credibility to the audience, the interviews of victims in Columbine slaughter and the president of National Rifle Association could be the best example to show it and Moore try to explain that he is trying to get all the facts start with the bottom of the problems; not just this one support his argument, other example use of ethos would be appeal to celebrities, such as the interviews with rock star Manson and use a clip from a comedian show called "bullet control"; also example is appeal to authority, for instance, Moore interviews the headmaster of a elementary school in Michigan, where a 6 years old child was shoot to death by his
He uses satire in his film to raise issues pertaining to the control of guns in America and find out the reasons why there is so much violence in America. He does this by exploring the American culture and history of violence, the unjustified white fear of blacks and the lack of justification for gun ownership. Moore believes that America has been responsible for a large number of wars and violent incidents around the world, culminating in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001. He uses the What a Wonderful World montage to prove that Americans do not use weapons in self-defence, as some would argue, but use weapons aggressively. Just before the sequence of revealing images, Moore is shown conducting an interview with Evan McCollum, Director of Communications at a Lockheed Martin plant near Columbine, who says, “But we have to learn to deal with that annoyance or that anger or that frustration in appropriate ways.
In order to arrive at a possible explanation, Michael Moore takes on a deeper examination of America's culture of fear, bigotry and violence in a nation with widespread gun ownership WHY I CHOOSE THIS FILM I choose this film because Michael Moore talk about reality is not trying to teach us about gun control in America but merely ask about why so many deaths, violent and anger behaviours among people in America than other country. THE CORE STORY OF THIS FILM This Film “Bowling for Columbia” is one of Michael Moore Documentary, it was produce in 2002 and evolved around how violence has been supported and encourage in our society. The documentary is run in the USA in a gun loving town called Michigan, in the said town there is a gun paradise Bank called North County Bank and Trust, “IF you open an account in this Bank a gun will be given, also this bank is a gun paradise where everyone that lives have access to gun. Michigan states police even said that the community is a place where you can commit crime, therefore when a dog shot a victim it was not held down for the crime because it is consider as a person. As Gun was free bullet
"(Peterson) With new improvements in technology, Quentin Tarantino and many other directors are capable of creating and destroying characters in a brutal, detailed manner. These characters are created as if they were made on an assembly line. Many critics and viewers protest these movies because they showcase non-senseless violence in a repetitive fashion. Other violent movies, such as The Passion of Christ, display violence in a detailed manner, but also offer a message of morality to its viewers. Violence in movies has always been a controversial issue, and author Vivian Sobchack concludes that these movies showcasing violence have no "moral agenda."
Some responded to one another’s post complaining about their biased decision. Do you parents take gun control and gun violence seriously? The video I selected that best relates to my research topic I found on you tube. It’s called Gun Control: Leads to More Violence. So in this particular video, Judge Andrew Napolitano is giving a speech about as American citizens we have the right to protect ourselves under the Second Amendment.
Rhetorical Analysis of Bowling for Columbine Michael Moore’s film Bowling for Columbine examines the use of guns and related violence. Moore’s main argument in the film is that Americans are kept afraid of each other, which is what causes disproportionate gun violence, as compared with other nations. It is especially evident that the film is intended to appeal to an audience of individuals who are against guns or are advocates of gun control and safety. Moore’s appeal aims to take the audience through an exploration of the history of guns and violence, while stirring up the question of when young people commit violent acts, who should be blamed? Bowling for Columbine follows a rhetorical format that applies heavy use of ethos, pathos, and logos to form his message of a “trigger-happy” America.
A documentary often serves to position the viewer to consider the perspective that it presents. Michael Moore's 2002 documentary Bowling for Columbine (what a wonderful world) is about a shooting massacre that assured at columbine high school. Moores uses the incident as to ask questions as to why america is such a a violent nation, full of fear that people are driven to the extent of having to posses a weapon so as to feel safer. Moore compares America to there neighboring country canada frequently, using examples such as the similar gun laws that they have and how they not feel the need to own a gun to feel safe. Moore also interviews a variety of people like Charlton Heston the former president of the national rifle association (NRA) and celebrity icons and other people off the streets.