How Does Michael Moore Evoke Emotion in His Film 'Bowling for Columbine'?

“Perhaps no one has had more influence on the role of political documentary in the contemporary public sphere than filmmaker Michael Moore” - Professor Carolyn Anderson. Michael Moore is an American writer and documentarian, best known for his liberal documentaries criticizing American culture and government. His documentary ‘Bowling for Columbine’ (2002) explores the circumstances that lead to the 1999 Columbine massacre, as well as examining American policies of gun control. The film was very popular winning the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature, and was the highest grossing documentary film at the time of its release. Alan Morrison, critic for Empire Magazine called it “a brave and important piece of filmmaking that dares to ask questions that many people would prefer remain unsaid”. Moore is renowned for his stylized filmmaking, sardonic nature, and the emotional resonance of his films. According to Greg M. Smith, “Filmic cues that can provide emotional information include facial expression, figure movement, dialogue, vocal expression and tone, costume, sound, music, lighting, mise-en-scene, set design, editing, camera (angle, distance, movement), depth of field, character qualities and histories and narrative situation”. Ergo, this essay will explore how Michael Moore uses certain aspects of filmic technique (as mentioned in the previous quote) to evoke an emotional reaction out of his audience. One such way that Moore evokes emotion in the audience is utilizing narrative situation, this being exhibiting the personal stories of subject experience and interviewing these people. In ‘Bowling for Columbine’ (2002), Moore talks to numerous people who have had first-hand experience with school shootings in America including Mark Taylor and Richard Castaldo, two students who were both shot in the 1999 Columbine massacre. In the film, the students show Moore their scars from where they were shot and Moore takes them to the Kmart headquarters to protest Kmart selling hand gun ammunition. Moore talks to the boys about their experiences and feelings during the Columbine Massacre. Fontana and Frey remarked that “interviewing is one of the most common and powerful ways in which we try to understand our fellow human beings”, and Moore uses this technique to try and create empathy in the audience. The interview is used to show the severity of the massacre, and Moore then uses these boys as figureheads of his political goal: to get handgun ammunition out of Kmarts across the US. An interesting way in which Moore evokes emotion in the viewer is through character qualities, more specifically, his physical appearance and how he represents himself through it as the documentaries narrator. Throughout the documentary, Moore wears simple t-shirts, baggy jeans, baseball caps and large glasses. Film critic Roger Ebert states, “The clothes send a message: here is a man of the people, working-class; he may be on television but he is not of television”. Moore presents himself as the average American man, making him a relatable presenter to the audience. Moore uses this to evoke strong emotion towards the end of ‘Bowling for Columbine’ (2002), when he takes the ex-Columbine students Mark Taylor and Richard Castaldo to the Kmart headquarters, in order to get hand gun ammunition taken off the shelves. They end up successful in their mission. Because Moore presents himself as the average American who has worked to make the world a safer place, Moore has become an inspiration to Americans, who compare themselves to him and wonder if they can also make the world a better place. Because Moore positions himself with the audience, he makes it seem as though change is achievable by the average person, perhaps motivating the audience to make change happen themselves. Amanda Michelle Grue notes that archival footage is frequently used “to stir the emotions of the audience” and Moore carefully uses this narrative technique in ‘Bowling for Columbine’ (2002). He utilizes real CCTV footage from the Columbine massacre, as well as real audio recordings from concerned parents contacting the police about the massacre. Both of which are deeply emotive as the violent images juxtaposed with the panic of the parents creates a feeling of hopelessness and fear in the audience, as like the parents in the audio recordings, the audience can’t do anything to help-possibly causing the viewer to re-evaluate their views on gun laws in America. Amanda Michelle Grue also points out that “in order to demonstrate facts, documentary filmmakers employ various tactics, one of which is the use of archival footage”. As a result of this, Moore successfully manages to force us to face the facts and happenings of the Columbine massacre, while simultaneously stirring our emotions, causing us to form our own opinions and become much more entranced and engaged by the documentaries narrative. Critic Roger Ebert echoes this line of thought, by expressing that “he [Michael Moore] returns several times to Columbine High School, at one point showing horrifying security-camera footage of the massacre”. Returning to Columbine High School throughout the film’s duration compounds its importance as a location, and mirrors how the audience cannot escape from the tragedy that occurred there, similar to how the victims of the attack also can’t outrun their trauma caused by the event. Another key technique Moore uses to evoke emotion from his audience is music. In ‘Bowling for Columbine’ (2002), a section of the documentary shows historical footage of the US being an aggressor nation paired with Louis Armstrong’s ‘What a Wonderful World’. Raymond Spottiswoode saw music as performing specific roles in cinema, including commentary in which the score takes the part of a spectator commenting on the visual film, usually ironically, and contrast in which the score contrasts with and so may heighten the effect of the visual film, both of which are apparent in this section from ‘Bowling for Columbine’ (2002). Louis Armstrong’s song ‘What a Wonderful World’ is used for both commentary as the hopeful tone and optimistic lyrics describing utopia creates irony when paired with the visuals showcasing the atrocities caused by the USA and contrast, as the stark difference in tone between the imagery and the audio heightens the effect of the visuals, creating anger in the audience as the utopia described in the song’s lyrics is so far from what is being shown on screen. Niam Thompson comments on the use of the song, saying that “the positive nature of the song contrasts with the images so greatly that the viewer is forced to assess whether the world is in fact so ‘wonderful’”. The sequence ends with the song fading out, leaving on the sounds of panic from a woman videoing the September 11th attack on the Twin Towers, further juxtaposing the tone of the song and exposing the fear and suffering underneath the facade of a utopia in the US. Just as the song fades out to reveal the panic, the facade of American utopia scratches to reveal that it’s all held up by fear and suffering. This positions the audience to be in a state of distress at the true colors of the United States being shown, with this being particularly more effective if the viewer is an American themselves. This section of ‘Bowling for Columbine’ (2002) also notably utilizes editing technique to construct narrative juxtaposition and evoke an emotional response from the viewer. Just before the ‘What a Wonderful World’ montage begins, Moore conducts an interview with Evan McCollum, director of communications at a Lockheed Martin plant near Columbine High School. McCollum says that governments don’t drop bombs on nations that anger then, and then Moore hard cuts to the ‘What a Wonderful World’ montage. The cut between McCollum’s comment and the montage works to construct the narrative that weapons manufacturers are tone deaf and often times willfully ignorant, as the section works as a sardonic rebuttal to McCollum’s comments, positioning the audience to feel anger at the company’s ineptitude. Lev Kuleshov experimented with cutting a clip of an emotionless man next to several different images including bread, a girl in a coffin and a beautiful woman, noting how the emotion felt by the audience and seen in the face of the character changed dependent upon the cut. This experiment led to an understanding that the position of a cut can create different emotions in the audience, so Moore cutting in this exact place can be seen as a technique to evoke anger out of the audience, as well as creating humor through the juxtaposition of the clips.