Bowling for Impact
Bowling for Impact
Bowling For Columbine (Michael Moore, USA, 2002) is arguably one of the most well-known documentaries of the 21st century. The Oscar-winning documentary, went beyond simply examining gun control but into a thorough analysis of American culture. The heart of the story lies in the tragic shootings of Columbine High School and Buell Elementary School. The film has difficulty pinpointing one problem and solution model with the issue, which is unsurprising given the complexities of these atrocities. However, violence and fear mongering are concluded as huge factors in these shootings. The film, produced with United Artists [1], demonstrated the possibilities of documentaries, particularly in its high numbers at the box office [2]. The success of the movie is applaudable and the techniques within the narrative are entertaining. However, the film could have had a greater influence had the feature used a distribution method that promoted critical conversations and worked along an organisation. Despite the lack of thoughtful impact strategy, the film was able to effect change, in stopping Kmart’s selling of ammunition.
The distribution and release of Bowling For Columbine, did not utilize strategies to reach target audiences, create forums of discussion, or collaborate with campaigns to effect change. The movie premiered at the 2002 Cannes Film Festival, embarking on a festival circuit, followed by a selective theatrical release. There was no website or media tactics presented in interviews with Michael Moore, or in the journalism of the film. The lack of focus on press strategy likely has to do with the large budget of 4 million USD [3], the quickly gained media status after Cannes, and Michael Moore’s established reputation. The movie’s release is much different from works like Unrest (Jennifer Brea, USA, 2017) which applied grassroots techniques including q and a’s, analysing of target audiences, systematic marketing, screenings with discussion materials, as well as a campaign intersection, #MEAction [4]. One could argue that Bowling for Columbine did not require extensive publicity and release strategies because of the initial acclaim from film festivals, its large budget and a distributor like Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) [5]. Yet, An Inconvenient Truth (Davis Guggenheim, USA, 2006) which had a 1-million-dollar budget, backing from Paramount, and the celebrity of Al Gore fronting the film, still utilized thoughtful outreach. An Inconvenient Truth ran selective and interactive screenings with an emphasis on The Climate Change Reality Project [6]. In contrast to other documentaries, the movie does not promote ways to remedy the issue like involving organizations or assembling spaces for discussion.
The film was still able to produce change through the mobilization of shame that occurred during production. Towards the end of the movie, Moore goes to Kmart headquarters with two victims of the Columbine Shooting to request a refund on the bullets within their body (Kmart manufactured the bullets used by the Columbine Shooters). The three, along with a camera and crew, ask to speak to with someone about Kmart’s ammunition policy. After many hours the group is met with a woman from Public Relations who directs them to the Kmart coordinator of bullet sales. Moore shows the gun-shot wounds within the teenagers back to the coordinator. Nevertheless, the initial attempt is ultimately proven fruitless. Despite the initial standstill, Moore and the survivors return once again after buying out an entire shelf of ammunition in a nearby Kmart. They also arrive with multiple news reporters and cameras to request heir refund. Consequently, their occupation of Kmart headquarters, results in a public relations executive announcing that the company will stop selling ammunition, ceasing all production in ninety days.
Bowling for Columbine’s elicited change through the technique of mobilizing shame; a powerful tool, that links knowledge and action and further signifies an involvement within a social sphere. The ability to feel embarrassment works as an appeal to responsibility and empathy. Shame, when the subject can experience it, works as way to govern when law is unavailable. Exposure causes the perpetrators to realize the way a larger scale perceives their actions. Obviously in some cases this won’t work, such as when violators do not feel that they are doing something wrong and thus don’t mind if their actions receive broadcasting or want their actions viewed. However, when the perpetrator does in fact feel badly about their actions, shame and exposure offer a platform to examine and thus alter their conduct. The interaction with the public, the very act of being seen and recorded, applied by cameras, makes the person think about how their behaviour operates within larger society [7]. In the case of Kmart, the corporation takes responsibility for what they have done. Moore’s application of the camera crew along with integrating the columbine shooting victims, provokes guilt and accountability in Kmart. In interacting with the teenagers, including showing their bullet wounds, there is a connection made between Kmart with the tragedy. The camera works as a tool of exposure, showing Kmart that they are being watched and placing them in the public sphere.
Bowling for Columbine did not strategize impact models, and this is palpable in their lack of focused screenings, engagement with forms of media, and further evident in the absence of collaboration with change-makers and campaigns. Perhaps, the films lack of emphasis on mechanisms for change has to do with the movie’s more theoretical approach to the gun violence, not providing a problem and solution model but instead seeking to stimulate a discussion. The film could have found ways to direct respond to the issue through a thorough analysis within the movie and methods of distributions. Moore and the Columbine produced change in the sales of a massive conglomerate through the tools of media. If Moore and like-minded associates were able to influence a corporation like Kmart, imagine the possibilities of exercising an impact-based approach to distribution. Given, the documentaries popularity there would have been ample ground to converse and implement change in the prevalence of violence in the U.S. It is unfortunate that the film did not attempt a more thoughtful approach. It is important to note that the film’s capacity for meaningful viewings were partly inhibited by the Motion Picture Association of America. The MPAA rated the film R, meaning no one under the age of 17 could watch the movie without adult supervision [8]. This rating prevented many potentially impactful discussions, as youth are a vital component, given the film’s foundation in school shootings. Sadly, many have noted that the picture remains extremely relevant. Perhaps if there had been a more dynamic use of audience and distribution and this subject wouldn’t be as relevant, or at least it would alter the way it’s been discussed.
Bibliography
Box Office Mojo. “Bowling for Columbine.” Accessed November 13th 2018 https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bowlingforcolumbine.htm
Ebert, Roger. “Bowling for Columbine-Review.” Roger Ebert, 18 October 2002. Accessed November 12, 2018.https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/bowling-for-columbine-2002
Farber, Stephen, “Michael Moore’s ‘Bowling for Columbine’ (2002).” International Documentary Association, November 30th 2007. Accessed November 11th 2018. https://www.documentary.org/magazine/michael-moores-bowling-columbine-2002/
Fuselier, Jess. “Unrest Case Study.” Sundance. Accessed November 10, 2018. https://www.sundance.org/case-studies/creative-distribution/unrest.
GuideStar. “The Alliance for Climate Protection d/b/a The Climate Reality Project.” Accessed November 13th, 2018. https://www.guidestar.org/profile/87-0745629
International Movie Database. “Bowling for Columbine.” Accessed November 13th 2018 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/?ref_=ttco_co_tt
Keenan, Thomas. “Mobilising Shame” The South Atlantic Quarterly (2004) 2/3, vol.103: pp. 436-445
Rose, Michael. “Michael Moore Guns for the Real Issues in ‘Bowling for Columbine’.” International Documentary Association, November 3rd 2002. Accessed November 11, 2018. https://www.documentary.org/feature/michael-moore-guns-real-issues-bowling-columbine
Filmography
Bowling for Columbine. DVD. Directed by Michael Moore. 2002. United Artists. 2002
An Inconvenient Truth. DVD. Directed by Davis Guggenheim. Paramount Pictures
2006
Unrest. DVD. Directed by Jennifer Brea. 2017. Sundance. 2017
[1] International Movie Database. “Bowling for Columbine”, IMDb (2002) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/?ref_=ttco_co_tt / accessed 12/11/2018
[2] Farber, Stephen, “Michael Moore’s ‘Bowling for Columbine’ (2002).” International Documentary Association, November 30th 2007. Accessed 11th November 2018 https://www.documentary.org/magazine/michael-moores-bowling-columbine-2002/
[3] Box Office Mojo. “Bowling for Columbine.” Accessed November 13th 2018 https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bowlingforcolumbine.htm
[4] Jess Fuselier. “Unrest Case Study.” Sundance. Accessed November 10, 2018. https://www.sundance.org/case-studies/creative-distribution/unrest.
[5] International Movie Database. “Bowling for Columbine”, IMDb (2002) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/?ref_=ttco_co_tt / accessed 12/11/2018
[6]GuideStar. “The Alliance for Climate Protection d/b/a The Climate Reality Project.” Accessed November 13th, 2018. https://www.guidestar.org/profile/87-0745629
[7] Keenan, Thomas. “Mobilising Shame” The South Atlantic Quarterly (2004) 2/3, vol.103: pp. 436-445
Roger, Ebert. “Bowling for Columbine-Review.” Roger Ebert, 18 October 2002. Accessed November 12, 2018.https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/bowling-for-columbine-2002