Melih Kılıç

USA has been struggling with gun violence problem for centuries. Michael Moore’s
“Bowling for Columbine” tries to get to the roots of this problem while focusing on the
Columbine High School massacre which injured 24 people and killed 12 students, 1 teacher
and ended with the 2 perpetrators’ suicide. This documentary brought Michael Moore “The
Oscar for Best Documentary”. It raises the question why the gun violence is such a big issue
in USA while it is not so big in other countries such as the neighboring Canada. Moore makes
the inference that it is closely related to the media’s scaring people.

Targeted audience is all American citizens and especially pro-gun people. The purpose of
the film is to show these people the problems in USA that stem from the gun issue. The
language used is very simple and daily American English. No grown-up would have a hard
time watching it.

Michael Moore, who is the writer, producer, director, and the narrator of this film, has been
in the film industry since 1989 and Bowling for Columbine was the highest-grossing
mainstream-released documentary until the record was taken over by his Fahrenheit 9/11. His
long experience and success in documentary making can be considered as proofs of his
credibility.

Appealing to ethos in the film was scarce yet enough. The scene where the narrator shares
some of his childhood appeals to ethos as it is personal experience. In the Heston’s pro-gun
rally scene, which he gives right after Columbine High School shootings, the narrator satirizes
the opposition to attack their ethos. During consecutive scenes of experts giving reasons for
gun violence they were obviously satirized and thus their ethos was attacked. In Heston’s
other pro-gun rally scene, which he also gives right after the death of a little girl, his
insensitivity about the issue was shown and was satirized. During Heston’s interview his
ignorance is shown by his answers and non-relevant comments breaking his ethos.

Audience’s logos was constantly targeted through raising questions and other strategies. The
narrator wanted the audience to try to find an answer to the questions raised with him. In the
scene where he asks the bankers if they think it’s a good idea to hand out guns in a bank,
audience was led to think how illogical this was. During the interview of Evan McCollum, he
was asked the difference between mass destruction with the missiles that they were producing
and the mass destruction at Columbine High to which he replied that he doesn’t see the
connection and US uses the missiles for defense not attack. But again, the audience’s logos
was targeted with this question. Right after this scene McCollum’s answer was proved wrong
with a series of footages that showed USA’s interference in other countries politics and mass
destruction. Later in the film, narrator points out that all the guns and ammunition used during
the Columbine massacre were bought legally which led the audience to question the logic
behind gun and ammunition purchases in USA. In the scene where the father of a victim
makes a speech, he makes points about the illogicality of a child’s being able to buy weaponry
so easily. In the scenes where USA is compared with other countries to find the source of gun
violence and proves all the theories wrong with examples. After that he shows statistics of
different countries’ firearm murders and USA’s and raises the question “What’s so different
about USA?”. Later in the film he compares USA and Canada and infers that the reason that
Canadians don’t kill each other like Americans do, is because they aren’t constantly being
scared by the media.

Strategies to appeal to the audience’s pathos was used most in this film compared to other
appeals. Many different emotions of the audience were targeted with different strategies. In
the scene where the narrator talks about the federal building bombing audience’s feelings of
anger against the bombers and sympathy for the victims were targeted. During the scene
where the lady shooter was talking, feelings of empathy for the woman were aroused. The
scenes which showed various gun violence footages were used to arouse the feeling of
sadness in the audience. The scene where a home security consultant was being interviewed
and he began crying when talking about Columbine was used to make the audience feel
sympathetic about the Columbine residents. The scene where a bomber plane and its
accomplishment of killing Vietnamese people was shown, audience’s anger against the US
government and military was aroused. The scene with the 911 calls during the massacre was
used to arouse sadness in the audience. The scene where Charles Heston holds a pro-gun rally
right after the massacre enrages the audience against Heston and NRA. With the scene of a
victim’s father’s speech, audience was aimed to be made feel empathetic and sympathetic for
the father and other victims. During Marilyn Manson’s interview he targets some of the
concerns of the audience. In the mini-documentary that tells USA’s history feeling of anger
against the pilgrims, slave masters, KKK, NRA and white people, and feelings of sympathy
and sadness for Native-Americans and Black people were aroused. The scene where
Canadians were interviewed could have been used to arouse confusion in audience. In another
911 call scene where a teacher calls to report a downed student feeling of sadness is aroused.
The scenes where the impoverished areas of the city are shown are aimed to arouse sympathy.
The scenes of the massacre’s survivors targeted empathy and sympathy in the audience. And
the scene that they stopped the selling of ammunition at K-Mart aimed to arouse happiness
and relaxation in the audience. With Heston’s interview and walk-out scenes the audience is
led to feeling furious about him.

“Bowling for Columbine” successfully shows the gun problem in the USA by using all three
appeals very effectively. Michael Moore is very persuasive in showing that the gun violence
is very closely related to the people’s constantly being scared by the media. He delivers this
message loud and clear. His use of film techniques and ordering of the scenes show his
expertise in filmmaking. I myself enjoyed the documentary very much and learned a lot about
an issue which I did not know was this big a deal. So, “Bowling for Columbine” by Michael
Moore is a remarkably successful documentary in showing all the things that it intends to.