This document provides discussion questions for analyzing the documentary "Bowling for Columbine" directed by Michael Moore. It asks the viewer to examine Moore's use of non-diegetic voiceovers and facts/statistics/interviews to expose the disturbing truth about gun usage in America. It also asks how Moore animates the audience through verbal, non-verbal and technical codes, and if this stresses a biased point of view. Finally, it discusses whether Moore's presence in front of the camera affects the integrity of representing reality.

1. ’Bowling for Columbine’
(2002)
Michael Moore
“Addressing the viewer Directly” (Expository Mode)
YOU MUST analyse the use of:
• Non-diegetic voiceover
• Statistics/Facts/Interviews
HOW do they ‘expose’ the disturbing “truth” of gun usage in the USA?
“Animates the personal” (Performative Mode)
What verbal, non-verbal and/or technical codes within the documentary “animate” the audience?
Choose a specific example – Does it stress a biased point of view? How do we feel about the representation?
John Grierson - “The creative treatment of actuality”
What evidence is there of Moore using ‘creative’ methods to engage
the spectator?
“Animates the personal” (Performative Mode)
“Michael Moore's aim in Bowling for Columbine was to leave audiences
angry” (Jane Chapman – 2009)
HOW does he succeed in this objective? Do you feel angry at certain points?
Stella Bruzzi (2000) – “..the minute an individual becomes involved
in the representation of reality, the integrity of that reality is
irretrievably lost”
Does Michael Moore’s presence in front of the camera effect the
‘integrity’ of this documentary?
YOU MUST answer these questions in detail throughout the screening and
write any extra areas on the back of this A3 analysis sheet.
YOU SHOULD use the other side if you run out of space as well!