In this documentary, director Micheal Moore, who also appears in the documentary and provides a narrative voice-over at times, sets out to explore the roots behind America's involvement and obsession with guns. Through a combination of archive footage, real-life interviews and juxtaposing music and imagery on-screen, Moore makes it clear that guns and the danger they cause are something to certainly be aware of, but is his argument a single-sided one?
Moore obviously has a clear message and he is able to back this with figures and facts - one of the most striking examples of this comes from a montage of archive footage of soldiers and warfare over the past forty or so years from the film's year of release (2002), with the concluding piece of footage being from the chaotic events of the 9/11 bombings. this imagery is set to Louis Armstrong's 'What a Wonderful World' which creates a visually-disturbing piece of imagery, as the footage itself suggests quite the opposite, as if bloodshed and gunfire is in fact an ideal world for Americans. However, it is arguable that Moore has included this in the editing process deliberately, to make the situation of America appear worse than it is. Having little knowledge of politics myself, I can only imagine that a politician would be enraged by this imagery, and would complain that Moore has over-exaggerated their beliefs and twisted their policies. However, I still find this type of imagery to be very heartful, especially during the CCTV footage and 911 calls of the Columbine high school shooting, set to to a backdrop of soft guitar strings. This clip rolls on for around 10 minutes, but felt like a patronizing and terrifying eternity, so much so that I wanted the footage to stop, and the voice of the actual 911 calls dubbed over this sequence was disturbing to hear.
Parents of those who were killed in the shootings blamed Marylin Manson for these events, complaining that his music was listened to by the killers. However, I cannot help but think that they are blaming him simply because they are angry and upset, and also because rock music is an easy source to blame? In an interview himself with Moore, Manson explained that his music was simply freedom of speech which, being a musician and songwriter myself, I cannot help but agree with. being an art-form, songwriting is a source of expressional outlet for me. As Manson points out himself, the killers were also big fans of bowling, so why was that not blamed? Like rock music, it is something that is well-established and widely know, so why not blame it? Moore also brings issues of race and international values into the the documentary, editing various footage of people saying 'black guy' in association to crime, and explores the difference in guns and violence in neighbouring country Canada. The biggest shock factor, I found, was the many statements of Canadians saying that they were not afraid to leave their doors open, despite being victims of crime many times in the past. Asking for thoughts on why the U.S. has doors locked constantly and own so many guns, the Canadians comment that maybe the Americans don't even trust their neighbours. With this in mind, I found myself stumbling on a year-going philosophy - 'treat others how you want to be treated'. Do Americans want to feared of each other?
Moore sums up the history of the United States in an animated film, portraying white people as being afraid of everything around them - other races, nature and even themselves, and concludes that this is the reason behind their need for guns - fear. Archive footage of George W. Bush giving a speech on fear, but it is never clear on what the people of America should be fearing. Is he saying that they should be afraid of fear, for the sake of fear? While possessing a serious message once again, is it clear that the animation appears as a mock of American culture, and political figures, I'd imagine, would not take Moore's argument seriously because of this, creating his own flaw. His later interview with N.R.A. leader Charlton Heston is also arguably a hypcritical backlash which Moore has not realised. Heston visited both the cities of Flint and Columbine just hours after the tragic shooting events on a pro-gun rally, much to anger of those who were related to or cared about victims of the shootings. Moore attempts countless times to put in place the fact that Heston had little respect fo those lost to the shootings, to the point where Heston walks away from the interview. This is hyprocritical when compared to the earlier blames on Mnason - is Moore just blaming Heston because he is a high, well-respected figure? which makes it easy to appoint blame? Or because of this factor, is Moore attempting to put a messgae across to him which Heston could put across to the legions of fans who agree with what he stands for?
Moore wants to tell the American people that they have been brainwashed into a state of fear, thinking that guns are the only way forward. However, placing all of this negative imagery around gun ownership with no opposite argument makes the film itself appear like a political campaigne, constantly opposing and criticizng the opposition, with the aid of historcal facts and figures that make it's reputation appear devastating - the opposition, in this case, being guns. Morally, I agree with what Moore has to say - I too feel that guns, under the wrong hands, are in fact no way forward, as under the ownership of them, we give ourselves and others a reason to fear. However, I fear that his film was set out to brainwash audiences in the U.S. - ironic, considering that the film itself aimed to make people aware that they had been brainwashed into fearing everything around them.
