Documentary: Bowling is Overrated

My Netflix recently delivered Bowling for Columbine, that 02 documentary that helped make Michael Moore a household name. This wasn't my first exposure to the large liberal icon. I saw Fahrenheit 911 shortly after it came out, and appreciated it for what it was, but left the experience not feeling particularly endeared to the man. Certainly, he's talented and has a sense of the theatric. But to my mind, "theatrics" and "documentary," are not compatible terms. As I sat down to watch this earlier work, my expectations were low, and they were met.

While Bowling was insightful and entertaining, it was also hokey and hard to watch. While I commend Mr. Moore for his persistance in getting face time with some interesting characters (most notably, James Nichols, the brother and perhaps co conspirator of the Oklahoma City bomber), I found his pushing of his own agenda and his silly dramatics with the K Mart executives and Dick Clark tiresome and worthy only of eye rolling. His exploitive interview with Charleton Heston, a man who clearly is in the early stages of either senility or Alzheimers, was particularly superfluous. In fact, after about a minute and half of that exchange, I had to hit the FF button.

There's a kernel of something respectable in Moore's motives. He does an admirable job of info gathering and piecing together a larger story. And his interviews with Marilyn Manson (who I continue to perceive as one of the most articulate non b-s-ers in the entertainment world) was engaging. But objective he's not, and in seeking to educate (which is the purported under goal of a documentary, second of course, to the all consuming goal of entertaining), objective is the one thing one must be. If I wanted to watch a pre packaged montage of selective audio and video clips meant to brainswash me into adopting a particular attitude, I'd go turn on Fox News.