 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | | | | | | |
 | ||||||||||||||
 |
Karen D Scott Documentaries made for cinema exhibition have staged something of a revival in the last few years – just in time to interest students faced with AS/A2 modules focusing on documentary practice. This short article considers the most successful documentary of all time at the UK box office, now readily available for study on video. Of all the contemporary documentary filmmakers to become ‘names’, Michael Moore stands out as perhaps the most vociferous. His latest foray into the cinematic world is the enigmatically titled Bowling For Columbine. Written, directed and produced by Moore, the film is a postmodern bricolage, combining such an array of elements it makes the text a really interesting documentary to study. As Moore hammers home his opinion utilising such a variety of techniques, its hard not to be seduced by his thesis – if you aren’t convinced by interview alone, well, we’ll throw in an animation just to re-enforce the point. Often using ‘found footage’, Moore appropriates archive material such as the promotional video for Littleton and an old advertisement which features toy guns. Whatever, they inevitably, ironically, support his ideas. Scratching beyond the surface of the (visually) captivating narrative, which purports to explore America’s fascination with the gun, students studying documentary will find this a valuable resource, as many of the traditional documentary addresses are easily identifiable. Moore himself has successfully managed to become a media personality, who is able to utilise his status to explore issues which concern him. Through his previous work (books, television series and films), the audience are encouraged to acknowledge his status as a purveyor of ‘truth’, a filmmaker who doggedly tracks down those who stand in his way – not that he always succeeds in getting the illusive interview that seems to dominate his quests. Bowling follows a similar trajectory to his earlier work, with the primary protagonist, who happens to be Moore himself, introduced, after an opening montage sequence which ironically explains how on the morning of the Columbine shootings, America was behaving in ‘typical’ fashion. The mix of voice over, non-diegetic music and the visual juxtapositioning of a series of disparate images, immediately positions the film on the boundary of how we expect a documentary to address its audience. The postmodern, MTV aesthetic, which is clearly at work here, rather than undermining the film, draws the viewer in – especially those who are familiar with his television series TV Nation. In this way the work transcends the expected (documentary) boundaries, combining both entertainment and factual discourses, which can lead students conveniently on to exploring how reality is constructed. The traditional codes and conventions employed to signpost that a text is ‘documentary’ are combined with fictional aesthetics and through an examination of the formal properties, students can begin to question their expectations relating to how a text should ‘look’ and lead into exploring what they expect from the actual narrative. As an auteur filmmaker, one of the defining features of Moore’s work is the way he personalises the situation, and utilises a range of techniques to encourage an empathetic response from the audience. This is not expository, third person filmmaking, rather it’s cinéma vérité, with everything coming back to how it affects Moore. The idea of vérité, which combines direct, provocative action from filmmakers who precipitate situations in order to eek-out some form of ‘truth’, fits rather comfortably with what we have come to expect from his work. Considered by some as the antithesis of direct or observational cinema, this interaction forms an integral part of the finished text, which serves to reinforce the subjective nature of the finished work. Straight after the opening montage we are presented with some home movie footage of Moore as a child with a voice over explaining his relationship to guns. We are told where he was born, where he grew-up, and all the incidents highlighted in the film are related back through a subjective narrative based around his experiences, and how they relate to him. The ‘bigger picture’ is personalised, and Moore presents himself as a socially concerned ‘everyman’ – he is not academic (or is not perceived to be), and he slouches his way through the film, often on camera, in his trademark jeans, t-shirt, and baseball cap. This man could be you or I, fighting what we feel are the social injustices of the world, making his case all the more convincing through clever use of mise en scène. This is aptly demonstrated with a sequence beginning twenty minutes into the film. Moore is in Littleton, Colorado, interviewing Denny Fennell, a home security expert. We are taken through ‘typical’ home security issues, and the interview is concluded on the front lawn, in bright sunshine. Dressed informally, at the end of the interview Fennell breaks down whilst discussing the Columbine shootings. We immediately then cut to Evan McCollum, public relations spokesperson for Lockheed Martin, the largest weapons manufacturer in America, also located in the Littleton area. Here the mise en scène is more formal, with McCollum dressed in shirt and tie, and placed, rather conveniently, in front of what appears to be a missile with ‘US Airforce’ emblazoned down the side. The environment is sterile, helping to support the idea that the arms manufactures are somehow ‘distanced’ from the outside, day-to-day world which Moore is investigating. As such, when he suggests that the company may be complicit in helping to create the environment which led to the Columbine shootings, its hard to believe McCollum as he categorically denies that this may be the case. This is immediately followed by a montage sequence which features international atrocities, sanctioned by the US. As the non-diegetic soundtrack featuring Louis Armstrong singing It’s A Wonderful World concludes, the final image we see is the second plane hitting the twin towers on September 11, 2001. Perhaps one of the reasons why the cinéma vérité approach is not utilised as much in mainstream contemporary documentary as other techniques, relates back to what we expect from a documentary and how we expect to be addressed. As demonstrated above, the incredibly subjective nature can also work to undermine the main argument, as the viewer feels manipulated into expressing certain responses. Always quick to make sure the ‘opposition’ has a voice, what Moore then does is create a clever juxtaposition, an ironic soundtrack or just includes extremist views which all help support his argument, leaving little space for the audience to weigh up both sides. Early on in the film the second main protagonist is introduced -- Moore’s ‘target’ for interview. This is none other than the legendary Charlton Heston; film star, head of the National Rifle Association, and fellow Michiganite. As the narrative develops Heston is heralded as a figure of ridicule, and it appears justifiably so. However, as the film concludes with Moore leaving the photograph of the dead six year old child, Kayla Rolland, on Heston’s patio, you cannot help but feel that this last act of petulance undermines what we expect from Moore, and it leaves for an uncomfortable feeling. It may be that his politics are admirable, but his methods are not. Students studying documentary have a valuable resource in this film. It undermines traditional notions of what to expect from a text, yet still manages to utilise many of the main features of the more traditional modes of documentary. From the ironic use of music, to the South Park inspired animated sequence, the film is a bricolage which at times does flounder as the narrative focus veers from exploring specific shootings to a general discussion of how and why Americans became fascinated with guns. Often clumsy and obvious, this is a film which is both intriguing and frustrating in equal measure.
| |||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |