I am part of a Discord server for people who love the Criterion Collection to discuss, review, and engage others about their love for those films. I decided today to watch Bowling for Columbine, an award-winning film by acclaimed humorist and (what the media has come to describe him as) documentarian, Michael Moore.
In the general discussion board we had an at times heated debate over his works. There are a lot of really good points Moore has made with his movies, and what I find disappointing about the discussion today is that these points are undercut by the public perception of his movies. The discussion we had wasn't about how ridiculous it is that America is a violent, fearful, gun-clinging country and how everyone is basically wage slaves to some degree or other - the primary themes of the movie.
Instead, we parsed and nitpicked over how Moore edits a segment of his film to make a point. So often we allow ourselves to be distracted from the actual subject matter and worry over how it's presented. And yes this is a film group but I would contend that this was part of Moore's point when making Bowling for Columbine.
The film's primary narrative - while ostensibly about the culture of fear and violence in America - is more about how the 24-hour news cycle pumps fear into the American psyche and how this fuels violent tendencies and stokes gun ownership and makes it an ingrained part the cultural landscape.
When Moore hones in on Lockheed-Martin he finds a connection between societal violence - like the Columbine shooting - and L-M's involvement in the war machinery. Children grow up seeing weapons of mass destruction lobbed at countries we have a beef with, and interpolate that to violence being acceptable against those who have personally wronged them.
What people have an issue with in all this is that he left out a few details. Instead of engaging on whether there is a connection between these issues critics are worried that he doesn't give the full story.
Only the thing is, Moore doesn't need to give the full story here. He isn't a journalist, this isn't a news report. In fact, Moore doesn't even consider the movies he makes to be documentaries. He considers himself a "filmmaker," not a "documentary filmmaker." That is an extremely important distinction to make.
Now, yes, an important aspect of film criticism is to consider whether the text itself makes its point clear. Intentions stated in an interview separate from the work don't count as the work. But I contend that the work does indeed distinguish itself. The editing is clearly presented for comedic effect, with smash-cuts from things people are saying to visuals that contradict, a device utilized several times throughout. And an animated short is dropped into the middle of it. There are some heavy moments, some turns that take it away from being humorous, but the vein of satire is still there even as Moore is drawing lofty conclusions near the end.
One particular criticism is that Moore implies a connection between The Michigan Militia and Timothy McVeigh, perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombing. Apparently Moore is disingenuous by not clearly stating that McVeigh was kicked out of the militia. Nevermind the fact that Moore shows interviews where the militia members state emphatically that McVeigh didn't represent their ideals. Nevermind the fact that the militia members are damning themselves with the ridiculous propaganda they spout off.
It is a fair point to say that Moore is in danger of losing his thread when he manipulates the information presented to such a degree. Certainly there will be some people who approach the material and see it as truthful in the same way as adherents who bow to FOX "news." Famously, the likes of Alex Jones and Rupert Murdoch will use a platform to make outrageous claims and accusations, then when sued provide a pat statement that, "No reasonable person would accept that claim as truth, news, or anything other than entertainment."
I believe it to be a false equivalence to accuse Moore of doing the same. The first difference between the two is that FOX presents itself as news with catch-phrases like, "Fair and Balanced." Moore makes no claim to do the same. He states before people see his work that it's not meant to be a news report or represent reality.
Secondly, the editing is obviously for humorous effect. Like with The Daily Show, the way films like Bowling for Columbine are put together and presented is clearly done in such a way that is different from the disingenuous efforts of Dinesh D'Souza, or even Bill Maher. The public perception, then, that his movies purport to reflect reality and his arguments are intellectually dishonest simply because a number of facts that would have bogged down the narrative were left on the cutting room floor, is simply an attempt to distract from the overall themes and ideas presented within the piece.
Speaking of distraction, I am getting away from my main point. Michael Moore addresses a number of underlying issues that are present with society ranging from how frequently bad news is reported vs the fact that overall statistics on crime have been on a downward trend since the start of the 90s, to how the corporate and political war machines affect the psyche of citizens. It's not video games and violent movies and music that influence a person to commit a mass shooting, it's the fact that so many people in power get away with wrongdoing without consequences, then drop bombs on countries we disagree with. People see bad behavior as being rewarded, then assume bad behavior is the way to get things done.
And the conversation with Marilyn Manson about how what the President does is much more influential on a young person than his music videos strikes to the heart of this point.
Yet...
In the discussion group today we didn't talk about that. Instead, we fought over how arrogant Michael Moore seems. We listed off facts Moore failed to present. Rather than acknowledge the points Moore made with his movie and discuss how he could have strengthened his argument, we allowed ourselves to be distracted by false equivalences.
Certainly, I am as much to blame as anyone else by allowing the distraction to take away from discussing the actual salient points of the film. And yes, if a point is not argued well it does not support the weight of its convictions.
But still there is something in that whole discussion that is bothersome, that I can't help but feel that we were arguing about the distractions and missing the important parts. Because what Moore was saying then is incredibly relevant today. Everything from 9/11 to the Iraq War to the Obama presidency to the Trump administration to COVID, all of it has been a series of crises and issues and news reporting where discourse has slowly started to slide down the drain and factions have formed on two sides of an imaginary divide, fueled for the most part by whichever form of media we most frequently choose to consume.
One can certainly trace a line from Moore films and The Daily Show to FOX, Jones, and D'Souza. Just as Star Wars shaped the modern blockbuster, Moore certainly has had an effect on the way news is presented to the masses. And I can see where this might cause some discord (no pun intended), or how some might draw parallels as to how Michael Moore is the liberal version of D'Souza. But I find that line of thinking to be dangerously reductive.
All of this comes back to the politics of distraction. Upon the success of Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 I began to see a lot of discourse in the early 2000s regarding how Moore doesn't always present details completely factually and manipulates editing of the interviews he performs and other details to conform to the narrative his films purport.
Sure the guy is no saint, and even in recent years he has said some things that I don't agree with which may be purely for sensational recognition. But there seems to be this idea out there that Michael Moore's films present bad faith arguments simply because of the way the argument is presented. That, like D'Souza again he is presenting his films as honest truth then claiming satirical intent when they are not received well. And those who make these arguments seem to be missing the fact that for the conservative counterparts the satire claim is an end-run done to avoid consequences while Moore's intentions are clear from the start. He doesn't need to claim satirical intent, it was always there to begin with. He isn't making his movies out to be something they're not.
Now, there is always the question of intentions vs. perception. What the audience perceives is often regarded as more important than what the artist intends. Because at the end of the day, if one does not strongly present one's case and the audience rejects it, that's on the artist, not the receiver.
Even understanding that, it's very frustrating to want to approach a group that you enjoy discussing things with, and have them all gang up on you in opposition to your point of view. In the past, even when I have disagreed with others, I have often come away with a sense that we are a community and can agree to disagree at times.
I did not have that feeling today, and to this community and all the friends I have made I would like to apologize if I seemed angry or frustrated. I would also like to point out that this is what the politics of division is all about. It's designed to split and divide otherwise close-knit communities due to the perceived differences on core or fundamental issues. And while I'm sure many have made their own minds up about Michael Moore based on what they have observed directly of him, I can't help but suspect that maybe there are some underlying factors. Perhaps years ago you read a take-down piece about Moore that didn't sit right with you or maybe you heard some friends talking bad about him.
I'm not trying to convince you one way or the other. Your mind is your own. Each of you came to those opinions via your own individual journeys. Far be it for me to disregard that.
My point is that once the media honed in on him Moore's opinions started to lose some of the weight they once did and once he was framed as an arrogant liberal who talks down to everyone by the media, well that's pretty much the main argument I got in the server today.
What frustrates me about this is that I wanted to discuss how the distractions Moore illustrates in Bowling for Columbine have just gotten worse. And in a way, we did though just not in the way I had intended. Because all we talked about was how much Moore was disliked and disingenuous, rather than engaging in a fruitful discussion about how social discourse hasn't really changed in 20 years, with the only changes being for the situation to worsen.
Part of what has become worse about social discourse is exactly the problem the film tries to address. For some reason, audiences have taken Moore's approach to Bowling for Columbine to be both the identifier of the ailment and the balm that cures it. Apparently Moore has arrogantly set himself as the arbiter of all that is right and proper and insists that only the liberal perspective is the correct view (nevermind the fact that he digs on Dems at least as much as Republicans). But that was never the intention of this movie. Bowling for Columbine was never meant to end the discussion, it was meant to start one
So, one might imagine my surprise (and disappointment) when today, I learned that that conversation had stalled out. Today, I learned that two movies which I love and which I had hoped would have had a positive impact on our political and social landscape actually seem to have had a wholly negative effect instead. Today, the masters of distraction won. And we all lost.
