Over footage as grey as the baron lands on which the soldiers and civilian casualties themselves lay, Louis Armstrong’s inspiring “What a Wonderful World” soothes the Fallen into their final bullet riddled sleep, as though a morphine lullaby numbing their senses into an insulting and eternal nothingness where they’ll remain forever as examples to all in a world of warfare and fear. I hear babies cry; I watch them grow; they’ll learn much more than I’ll ever know; and I think to myself, ‘What a wonderful world’. Bowling for Columbine – What A Wonderful World (Warning: contains graphic images.)
For my Film Production Projects module in my second year of University, we are tasked with creating three types of short film over the coming year: factual/documentary; fiction; and experimental. To start with, we’re focussing on factual/documentary and this means I get to rewatch some of my favourite documentaries for research (‘Bowling for Columbine’; ‘Outfoxed’; ‘Religulous’; to name a few) and introduce myself to some new ones (like the supposedly haunting ‘Capturing The Friedmans’.) As I go along, I’ll be making notes on what I think about the documentaries I’ve watched and the techniques they employ in their production in order to employ the best and most suitable myself. The aforementioned “techniques” don’t just consist of the technical aspects of the films however, they also include the psychological and il/logical argumental techniques used to communicate, and persuade the audience of, the direction the production has taken – be it bias, or purportedly otherwise.
If you’ve seen Michael Moore’s documentary ‘Bowling for Columbine’ you’ll probably be familiar with the scene described above. If you’re not, you can click the link inserted. It’s an extremely poignant but unsettling scene that acts as a clear mission statement on behalf of the director and as an indicator of the bias or ‘direction’ the production takes throughout: in response to the dominating rationale at the heart of American society, it makes American societal norms seem fearful and irrational, and the things that society sees as fearful and irrational seem liberating and reasonable. It is, in my opinion, one of the greatest “documentaries” ever created (it’s certainly one of the most critically acclaimed) but I have one question about it: does the Wonderful World scene betray the production in terms of being a documentary?
I ask this because there’s a reason the documentary section of my film module is referred to as “factual” and not “subjective”. Typically, when you think of a documentary, you think of a film that purports to display the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding an event. ‘Bowling for Columbine’ however documents the investigation of one man into the attitudes of an entire nation and its response to his criticisms and questions of it. Whilst he employs statistics (which we assume to be unaltered, contextualised fact until we find the sources for ourselves) as he does in scenes like the Wonderful World scene, he does so in order to attempt to convince you of his overall belief. Whilst you’re invited to decide for yourself in light of his evidence, ‘…Columbine’ is not without its persuasive tactics.
The film appears to target specific types of gun totting groups: in particular hunters who engage with weaponry for sport or fun; the Michigan Militia who have set “period” ideals; and myriad senior officials who are all old, white men who sport grey hair, and if portrayed in a suit, sport a red tie (suggesting a Republican image?) All of these, by reputation or association, (at least from a progressive English liberal’s point of view) could have a possibly tainted credibility (non-experts; Militia; Republican.) An example of such also serves as a second example, which is omission of facts or information: when talking to a representative of missile production company Lockheed Martin, Moore frames the rep. in front of a deconstructed missile and cuts between suggestively racial messages such as “No foreign parts allowed” (to paraphprase) and yet neglects to inform us that the “missiles” are in fact rockets designed to send satellites into orbit. Similarly, in ‘Michael Moore Hates America’ (a counter-response to the divisive filmmaker) the bank employees that gifted a free gun upon the opening of an account said that they were misled during filming of the segment, participating under the pretext of “doing a story on unique businesses across America”. Thirdly, though the whole film could be considered as such, Moore himself appeals to emotion through the use of a murdered six(?) year old girl’s school photo in order to convince the NRA President he’s wrong, effectively manipulating an emotional response. That said, it’s not necessarily in place of a valid argument, let alone a compelling one.
The Wonderful World scene is certainly intended to illicit a strong emotional response through the use of ironic, contrasting and popular music to a subject so grim yet honest. How hard and how far, then, can you push any idea that you feel is in fact the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Is it not a piece of propaganda film making? It is, after all, a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position. If it is, is it a pejorative piece? It seems to want to release America from the constraints of a backwards mentality that other places such as practically gun-crime free Canada have long since abandoned. From the opposing point of view you would certainly think so. It doesn’t sound like a bad thing, however, as a progressive society is, by definition, better.
“Documentary” films in the same vain of ‘Bowling for Columbine’ such as Bill Maher’s ‘Religulous’ include documented facts and statistics, but use them in such a bias (possibly ironic) way they attempt to push ideas that ridicule the established order. In this sense, they’re paradoxically perverse in terms of being documentary films because they don’t just document events, they fully attempt to influence change but do so by letting the documented events speak for itself – which is not necessarily the role of a documentary. Who’s to say it shouldn’t be, though?
My favourite scene from ‘Riligulous’ explains this best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_QDA6Y6cp8 The awkward silence at the end, ironically, speaks volumes. To me it says ‘Shit. I really did just undermine my own argument and that of my fellow same-opinion holders in one fell swoop, essentially allowing for all of the Senate and American religion-influence politics to be discredited.’ Moore and Maher don’t need to force an ideology on you, then; they just need to show – nay document – you what you’re not necessarily willing to admit. In short they want you to know much more than your predecessors could ever know by being aware of all of the oppressive and backwards mistakes they made. They done screwed up, and they don’t think it should go undocumented.
Again, sorry for the loosely structured but very initial word vomit. It makes sense in my head. Promise.
Posted 23:55, to be edited later