Comments on 'Bowling For Columbine'

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.

How is power and conflict conveyed in 'The Class'?

I will begin by pointing out and exploring a factor where power and conflict are obvious on-screen - through the creation of characters. Already in the classroom we can see a wide range of races brought together into one compressed space. Students are African, Asian, Latino and White, amongst other races. A social divide is clearly obvious and, thanks to director Laurent Cantent's decision to film documentary-style shots from the inside of the class-room, I feel as if I am sitting in the class myself. The tension has made it's way from the screen and connected with me. Also, the decision to include no non-digetic sound at these points enhances the power of the classroom setting - it is raw. Anything can be heard, and when it is, questions and judgment can be fired from any direction. The focus is purely on what will happen in this small space.

For nearly the entirety of the film, we see nothing of the outside world. The only thing we see are the grounds of the school, be it the classroom, the staffroom or the playground. Whenever we see the characters, it is always within the school. We hear about their lives outside, but never actually see them for ourselves. With this in mind, I found myself split between two decisions: one would be to care little for the moans and groans of the students. For example, Souleymane, from Mali, is said to have 'issues' at home and a problem with temper which, during one scene where he leaves the classroom in a fit a of rage, is clear, but what isn't clear is what 'issue' at home would have provoked this. Other students explain that he is on a final warning to be sent back to Mali permanently, which poses the question as to why he would let himself react so violently in the first place. Something visual of his life outside of the school would aid in providing reasons for their rage and sympathy from me (much like in Richard LaGravenese's 'Freedom Writers'). On the other hand, we can simply imagine their home-lives. the Dialogue is descriptive enough to make me question as to what happens outside of the school. I am curious and eager to know more about these characters.

During an early scene in the staffroom, we learn that some of the teachers are so familiar with the students that they feel they can pigeonhole them. One of them lists all of the students as either being 'nice' or 'not nice', which signified that they felt not a trace of hope for those labeled 'not nice'. They know that there is no point in trying to educate them, and the fact that this has become a familiar tactic for the teachers, I find, is very disheartening. At the same time, however, this presents the form of power that the teachers in the school have - the power of experience, not just of teaching, but of the world that they live in. Because of this, a generation gap is clearly put in place. François Bégaudeau, our leading teacher who's autobiography provides a backdrop for the film's action, experiences this gap. He comments that two girls were behaving like 'skanks', to which they took much offence, thinking that he was calling them prostitutes. The issue grows quickly and surrounds Bégaudeau which shows that, despite sharing the same the language, the developments of generations has led to different interpretations of the most basic sentences. He confronts the two girls with the issue in the playground, and the low-angle shots at this point are extremely effective, drawing attention to every word that is said between them. Bégaudeau can fight for his cause, he can justify and defend his choice of wording and why he used it. But at the end of the day, it is one thirty-something against half a dozen teenagers, who all share a taste of slang. He is alone, and cannot find external, supportive justice. Times have changed.

The playground itself, when seen on-screen, is shot from a high-angle, looking down on the children playing their games, conversing or so be it, as if they were animals in the wild. Fights break out at unpredictable moments, enhancing the feel that this is their natural habitat. However, we, as an audience, cannot get involved. We can only watch, just like a documentary on television, that is all that it is. We observe who is dominant and we see who is week. We see what territory belongs to who, which, in a documentary, clearly presents who the power belongs to. The only thing missing is the commentary. There are rare occasions when we get a closer view of this location, and one of them I have mentioned above. When this happens, I feel as if I have to be weary of any comment or action made. Because of what we have seen from a birdseye view, we know the dangers that the area presents, and to be in this presence is daring of the director.

Creative project outline

For my creative project, I have chosen to write a screenplay based at a music festival. In an attempt to re-create the festival atmosphere, I will be using my own experience to shape the location description and sound, as well as an extent of the dialogue. I have chosen to do this as recently, I have felt that too many music festivals are being attended by punters so that they can get what they think is 'the festival experience' as seen on broadcasts by the BBC, where they present live coverage and highlights from the likes of the Glastonbury, T in the Park and Isle of Weight Festivals. These programmes, I feel, show nothing more to the viewer than snippets of audience members having 'fun' (i.e. bopping along to bands on-stage) and the presenters deal with incidents, such as lateness, casually, revealing no nature of the actually atmosphere in front of the stage. For example, at 2010's Reading Festival, headline act Guns'n'Roses took to the stage an hour late, during this time thousands of punters began booing, shouting and chanting a number of foul language soaked comments. Does the BBC chose to broadcast this? No.

Coming back to my point about people attending festivals for the wrong reasons, I used this thought to create my central characters, Gary, Andy, Will and Dave. Gary is a festival novice, while Andy, Will and Dave have a few years worth of festival experiences under their belts. Here, I found the opportunity to add elements of comedy to my screenplay. E4's hit comedy series 'The Inbetweeners' was an ideal influence for my novice character as I based him on the show's Will McKenzie, a character who easily loses his temper when something does not go as he has planned it to (series 3, episode 6, in particular). With this in mind, I hope to create a character who's dialogue and actions trigger comic applause form an audience, while at the same time presenting a teenager having a miserable time. He does not enjoy the atmosphere of the festival campsite (loud chants throughout the nights, burglary from tents, heavy fires, the toilets, mud ect. - again based on my own personal experience of festivals) and thought it would be something quite different, as shown by the BBC's coverage of festivals in the past.

Another influence on this project will be Kevin Smith's 1994 debut film, 'Clerks'. This is because of it's tagline - 'Just because they serve you...doesn't mean they like you.' To me, this suggests that customers in any form of shop think nothing more of the people who served them than, well, the people who served them. Little do they know, however, is what the shop assistants are really thinking and what really goes on while no customers are around. While my screenplay will not be set in a shop, the subtext of this tagline will have a heavy impact on my screenplay. As I mentioned above, broadcasters such as the BBC present little of what actually takes place at a music festival, so my idea is to present the truth, based on my own experiences, once more. A day in the life of a festival goer, more or less.

Hows does 'Persepolis' represent politcal and social messages?

Because of the film’s graphic novel-based style, some of the scenes appear comic on-screen, which I find, to be worrying. I say this as one scene depicts a group of young children, led by Marjane, chasing a boy down a road with nails and chains in hand, shouting ‘poke his eyes out’, after hearing about a series of torture methods that Mjarjane’s uncle experienced in prison. This represents how easily children can be influenced by what adults have to say. I don’t think it would have mattered if young Marjane understood why that was happening to her uncle or not: It is the action that is provoked upon hearing this story that is important to pay attention to Does. Her uncle was placed in prison in the first place because of his decision to take action for something he felt strongly about (he decided to express his favours towards communism) and because the government didn’t like it, they put him in prison, expressing a corrupt scheme of government because he is being locked away for expressing his viewpoint.

Another thing that I noticed while watching this film was the large disrespect towards females. The story takes place over three decades, and this horrible and offensive attitude towards women remains the same throughout. Just before the film’s episodic transition occurs to take us into 1983, a man viciously comments that he takes women and ‘bang them like whores’. What this viewpoint represents is that some men of the decade strongly felt that women were no more than objects: there are many of them to go around so it is no problem if one goes missing: this man can find just another ‘whore’ anytime he wants. Even a decade later, in 1992, where Marjane arrives back from Vienna, she is told by on-street officers to wear her headscalf correctly: it is as everything has a correct place to be, and that variety is prohibited. The soldiers themselves all appear identical to each other, wearing the colours and same generic shape of body that suggests they have fallen to a dictatorship. Even more worryingly, some of the soldiers are very young (one was around the age of 16) which shows how much of an impact the Islamic fundamentalist government had had on the shape of society. However, Marjane is not afraid to take this issue into her own hands, and in one scene, during a school assembly addressing students of how to wear their uniforms (another victim of the new government’s ways), she confidently expresses her rejection to the idea of making women’s dresses appear shorter, while there was already an issue of women’s clothing appearing too short and skimpy. They have been drive to a losing state of field and she has the guts to speak against it.

As I have just mentioned above, a new police force consisting of the Iranian society was put in place by the new government, attracting a number of young men. There is one scene in particular where I think editing was used in order to represent the tension they create among the people around them. Alcohol had been outlawed during the start of there reign over Iran, and during a party, the cross-cutting sequence between the soldiers charging towards the apartment and the nature of the party really show how hard the government wanted to clamp-down on all wrong-doers. It appears on-screen as such a heavy tension builder, showing one state as a jolly atmosphere, where no one has a care in the world about what is happening outside (the party) and the corrupt authorities pacing rapidly towards a problem that they feel can only be delt with in an aggressive sense of attitude. In the end, they are able to drive one the attendees to death (he attempts to shift from roof to roof but misjudges his jump and falls) and they didn’t even have to shoot him down. This character I sympathise with heavily - he simply had no other way of escaping the problem at hand, created by this restrictive government.

As I have already mentioned, the film’s graphic novel style is what is most striking about the messages and themes addressed in this film. Political corruption, animated expressionism on faces and the influence upon children all occasionally appear comic at stages in the film, and what is worrying about this is that these are seriously relevant issues to today’s society that need addressing. I see this as a wake-up call, as by presenting these horrifying issues in this style, maybe audiences will take notice about what is happening in the Eastern world. Because the graphic novel obviously appeals a lot more to what is happening elsewhere in the world to the typical Westerner, maybe by sharing a story in this fashion will make the whole issue a lot clearer.

Comments on 'Persepolis'

'Persepolis' tells the story of Marjane Satapri, an Iranian women, and spans three decades. Conflict is present throughout the story, from the protests against the Shan of Iran (which her family are heavily involved in) and the Iran-Iraq war, to later fighting for her own beliefs during a university assembly. What is most striking, but obvious, is the use of graphic-novel style used to prevent this imagery. As a viewer, I was tricked into noticing some comic moments. I say tricked as a high volume of these images really should not have been found comic, including Marjane and a group of young children chasing a boy with a nails in their hands so they can 'poke his eyes out' after hearing of torture methods that Marjane's uncle experienced in prison (it shows how easily influenced children can be) and the desperation to hide alcohol after almost being raided by Iranian soldiers. Maybe this is why, however, that the filmmaker has decided to use this graphic novel style (the film itself is based on a graphic novel). These are serious issues that need to be addressed, so what better way to present it to a Western audience by showing it in a way that they at first think would be 'comic'?

The style of the narrative is quite episodic. An adult Marjane reflects on her past growing up during the revolution in Iran, and this presented when the years 1978, 1982 and 1992 appear alone on-screen, accompanied by either digetic music or Marjane's voice-over. Each year is soaked with political, religious and cultural influence, presented by clothing (the constant wearing of the Veil by Marjane and her friends in Iran), Marjane's constant conversing with a God-like figure as a child, showing her distaste for her loved ones being tortured and killed, and, most strikingly, the introduction of Western culture, and how it is seen by the Iranian soldiers and Nuns as something truly horrific. It is as if it has an illegal drug-like presence, and it can only be found with figures cloaked and shaded up, as if they are hiding something a lot worse (to Westerners, that is), aiding to present the conflict between East and West. Despite all of the aggressive matter directed towards young Marjane, she seeks comfort in her Grandmother, a figure who is certainly powerful in ensuring Marjane that identity is most important thing on earth, in a gentle fashion. The influence, however, appears lost when Marjane is sent to Vienna, Austria in an aid to protect her from the crumbling society of Iran. She has had a taste of Western culture, but now she engulfs herself in it, experiencing sex and relationships, all of which, lead to disappointment. Conflict eventually drives Marjane to homelessness, and a taste of serious illness enforces her to return to her Eastern roots.

Back in Iran, Marjane is able to share her opinion with confidence and fight for female equality during an assembly, presenting that she is in charge of her own identity after all. Her Grandma's influence cannot be forgotten. She has taken an influence and made it her own.

Evaluation of our creative project (practice)

As our filming location was restricted to just the College building, we wanted to shape a narrative that would appear relevant to this location, and not be over the top or unbelievable. Also, as I have said before, when watching 'La Haine' another film based on power poverty and conflict, we noticed that the narrative and action was set out against a political context that affected the central characters. These were two key inspirational factors that we used to shape our film, which hopefully resulted in this: a political context that affects the protagonist, but at the same time, it is a context that is believable relaxant to the location and the characters. That is why we opted to use the news concerning rising tuition fees for universities in England as our political context. What's believable about it is that should these scheme be approved (I heard the news on Thursday night, bad times...), a number of students will be affected. They will simply feel that because of rising the cost of fees up to £9,000 a year, higher education will just seem 'too impossible' to reach from a financial aspect. This how we aim to show poverty - students are denied opportunity because of what something costs. However, when filming this, I felt that the dialogue was very compressed in the sense that the only thing the viewer will see is a rebellious, whiny student. Also, our script did not take as long to film as I thought it would, so some sections of dialogue were improvised on the day. While there is nothing wrong with improvisation, I was concerned that the viewer may find this section to be a bit too general, and not dealing with the context. That it will appear as nothing more than a 'for and against' argument about university, something that happened and will continue to happen if fees were raised or not.

However, something that I feel we have done well is made out political context clear. We begin the film by showing a computer monitor that contain a web-page of a news article about the raise in tuition fees. I feel that when seeing this, the audience will be less-likely to question why we have chosen to include our created characters as they have seen why they behave in the way that they do. By doping this, we are also hoping to show an element of power - the power of parliament and the strain that it will inflict amongst generations of young people to come. Unfortunately, the way that we wanted to present conflict became less powerful due to the fact that when writing the script, I had included too many lines for the person playing the Teacher character to learn in a short space of time before filming. The dialogue was quite forceful (see below), I had written this when thinking of (again, no named mentioned) teachers who are strongly encouraging of getting student to apply to university.

"That’s ridiculous! You have to go to University, because what else are going to do? Nothing, that’s what! Without education, you’ll be nothing! This college will have nothing to show for your generation if you all said that you ‘can’t afford’ to go to university, so there are no excuses! Get a move on!"

We wanted this dialogue and this character to reflect conflict. He presents a contrasting view on going to university, appearing to care little for the student's excuses for not wanting to go. All he is concerned about is having impressive work to show from students who had studied at the college - like trophies on a shelf. What I fear is that, as this dialogue became compressed, the conflict that we were trying to present will appear less powerful to the viewer.

Before writing this script extract, I have had experience with scriptwriting. However, this was not for film, but for theatre, so when writing this, I found that I had to restrain myself from writing stage directions and find a way to represent the aspects of power, poverty and conflict as if they were written for the screen, and not the stage. This was a challenge, but I challenged that I liked as it has given me preparation for when I write my screenplay for the real creative project. I will think back to this experience when creating this and try to apply a similar writing style to what I have done now. Also, I have learnt that when writing scripts, I need to consider how much time there is before filming must happen. This is so that when working with others, they can learn dialogue effectively and give better performances. This will decrease the chance of having last-minute hitches on the day of filming, meaning that we can use time much more efficiently.

Comments on 'Gommorah'

From the beginning of the film until the end of it, we are made aware countless times that power, poverty and conflict are a prominent theme across four individual stories. Money is constantly mentioned, such as an opening scene where an elderly man complaining about the amount of bills that he has to pay, stating that 2,000 Euros isn't enough, and a scene near the end of the film where a mobster describes people's debts as being like crops - they just keep on growing. A choice to join a rival gang destroys the friendships between two young boys, and the initiation phase of joining a gang, by wearing a bullet-proof vest and being forced to take gunshots, being left with horrific bruises. There is no other sound at this point - just the gunshots, and because of this our attention is brought to it. It is moments like this that show us how emotionally moving and shocking gunfire can be to the individual - the tension on their faces, like the close-up of the the man who was just threatened by two mobsters, is chilling to see. The use of tracking shots imposes the feeling that their are significant features about some of the characters, and by surround scenes after gunshots with nothing but silence, we are aware of the shock that these events cause.

Unfortunately, all of these powerful shots, I find, appear to drive towards no sense of overall narrative. With emphasise split between four separate groups of characters, and sadly, it seems as if the timing between characters are broken down in to fragments that just don't explain enough about each group. For example, we will have a 2-3 minute focus on one group of characters, surrounded by emotionally provoking imagery, and after that, the emphasis changes. Because of this, we as viewers fail to get any sort of emotional attachment to the characters - I can't even name any of the characters. It is as if we see them, 30-45 minutes later, we see them again, 30-45 minutes later, they are dead. Contextually, 'Gomorrah' sounds as if it would contain much more attaching moments. The author of the book where the film gets it name, Roberto Savino, has been held under police protection since its release in 2006 because of the amount of Cammorra mobsters who want him dead for publishing notes of their activities around Naples, Italy. This factor made me build excitement towards the film, thinking that detailed and frightening events would portrayed on-screen. While many of the scenes are frightening and disturbing, such as the closing shot of two dead bodies being carried away in a large digger (it shows that they are not humans, but just more litter to be cleared up from the floor), they are no detailed. As I have mentioned above, it seems that individual plots are cut far too short, and resumed far too late so we lose attachment.

However, the cinematography is used powerfully, it is just shame that this power appears to drive towards no narrative. For example, after a scene where a car has crashed, the front rolls right up towards the camera screen, creating a close-up. At this moment, I felt the intensity that the shot was aiming to create. the Tracking shots used, particularly of the boy sporting an England vest near the beginning, create the impression that the figure are important - our attention is drawn to them, yet we learn little, if anything, about the characters afterwards, as the emphasis on them then changes. A large amount of party music is used during a shoot-out, creating a shocking contrast in terms of what kind of event that the music is suggesting. Sadly, once more though, it then seems as if no developments are made from these points.

The contextual research that I conducted prior to watching 'Gomorrah' made me desperately want to like this film. Unfortunately, with no attachment to any characters whatsoever caused by cutting story extracts way too quickly, the film fails to contain a definite narrative. As I have stated, some very startling and powerful scenes are mused in the film, thanks to the incredible use of cinematography, but seems as if they don't drive any narrative either - they are just there. Powerful images, it seems, without a story.