1) Michael Moore's documentary 'Bowling for Columbine' uses various documentary modes and techniques to examine gun violence in the US and leave audiences angry. 2) The film opens with Moore opening a bank account and being offered a free gun to highlight lax gun laws, and uses interviews, statistics, and archival footage to compare US and Canadian gun deaths. 3) It represents pro-gun advocates like Charlton Heston and the NRA negatively to suggest they glorify guns over lives lost, and uses its style and Moore's narration to convey his own political views and anger over gun violence and policies.

1. ‘Bowling for Columbine’ (2002) Michael Moore
Modes of Documentary Representation of
“reality”
Presence of film
makers (Michael
Moore)
Conventions of
documentary
Opening Scene – “It
was a typical morning in
America” – This non-
diegetic voiceover
addresses the directly
and conforms to the
conventions associated
to the Expository Mode
After the non-diegetic
voiceover – SEE LEFT – The
camera cuts to Moore at a
bank whereby he opens an
account that is “the one
with the free gun”.
This immediately adds
shock value to the
documentary and
highlights an immediate
‘signifier’ (De Saussure)
to the direction of the
documentary and some of
the social issues in the US.
Moore being filmed
opening the account
immediately adds
credibility to the
documentary.
The ensuing
conversation with the
lady at the bank – who
declares they are
“licensed firearms
dealers” – conforms to
HOW “Michael Moore's
aim in Bowling for
Columbine was to leave
audiences angry” (Jane
Chapman – 2009)
- Expository Mode
Voice of God
commentary –
Moore’s tone of
voice is borderline
sarcastic.
- Heavy reliance on
visual imperatives
of some of the
stock characters
who MAY take part
in the narrative of
the documentary.
- Quick cuts away
from the lady who
agrees with
Moore’s comment
about being
“normally mentally
defective” adds an
element of fiction
to the
documentary.
Archive Footage of
Moore growing up and
going to the Bank -
Expository Mode
“I was such a good
marksman” – Establishes
an element of further
credibility to Moore’s
credentials in dealing with
the issue of Gun usage in
the USA.
Unbiased views – however
the non-diegetic voiceover
of “those were the days”
adds some irony to the
‘The Setup’ (Syd Field) of
the documentary.
Moore getting a haircut
whilst buying bullets,
which is anchored by the
non-diegetic voiceover
“this was the kind of
place I was from” –
further serves to “leave
audiences angry” (Jane
Chapman – 2009)
- The filmmaker
goes into the field
and participates in
the narrative of
the documentary,
as well as
endeavours to take
on the role of
‘social actor’
Participatory
Mode
1

2. After Columbine
Scene -
The emotion and sadness
in Moore’s directive non-
diegetic voiceover –
which comes as Heston
“rallies his troops”
together- further
conforms to the
Expository Mode
whereby Moore aims to
convey further
important information to
the spectator.
“From my cold dead
hands!!” –
Moore has manipulated
the representation of
Charlton Heston of the
NRA to be ‘villainous’
(Propp) in the eyes of the
spectator.
“I have a message from
the Mayor Mr Wellington
Webb” is greeted by boos
from Hestons patriotic,
gun loving followers.
“Dead” – This verbal
code connotes how
American society – instead
of mourning – is glorifying
the death of innocent
people through the
presence of Charlton
Heston.
Moore’s lack of presence
is served to provide the
spectator with reflection
as to WHO to support of
take sides with –
especially as the scene
cuts to NRA protestors
with signs denoting
“Shame on the NRA”.
Does this “leave
audiences angry” (Jane
Chapman – 2009)?
Does this add more to
‘the integrity of that
reality’ (Stella Bruzzi -
2000)?
- Observational
Mode The
recording of events
as it happens – the
camera is NOT
obtruding on the
presentation of
two divided
American
communities post-
Columbine
shooting.
- However, the way
Heston is
represented does
raise question
marks surrounding
this reality as it
could conform to
“The creative
treatment of
actuality” (John
Grierson)
ideology.
Moore’s visit to
Canada -
The filmmaker goes into
the field to further
investigate the problem
of Gun crime in the USA,
this conforming to a
Participatory Mode
convention.
Interview with the police
officer in Sarnia, Canada –
someone we trust and
value as an opinion
provider – highlights there
were “none” when asked
about the amount of
murders in the town.
The camera, later on in
the scene whilst anchored
by the “voice of God”
commentary of Moore
(Expository Mode ) pans
right to reveal the close
proximity of Windsor,
Ontario to Detroit,
Michigan:
“In fact this Windsor
policeman told me the
only murder he could
recall from the last 3
years was committed by a
guy from Detroit”.
“Fun Facts about
Canada” – Heavy
reliance on statistics in
this scene and
throughout the
documentary.
The binary opposition
(Levi Strauss) of
American views about
Canada and “The truth”
according to Moore
serves to highlight the
problem that confronts
American society.
Again:
Does this ignorance and
denial “leave audiences
angry” (Jane Chapman
– 2009)?
- A combination of
the actual and
imagined (Footage
of US citizens
debating as to why
Canada is safer
than the USA)
highlights a
convention
associated to the
Performative
Mode
2

3. George Bush’s
America –
Michael Moore’s attempt
to provide the spectator
with a fiction like
‘resolution’ (Syd Field)
OR ‘new equilibrium’
(Todorov) to the
narrative also
establishes HOW this
documentary is most
commonly associated to
the Expository Mode
The inclusion of an
aggressive, guitar heavy
non-diegetic soundtrack
has been utilised as a
stylistic and editing choice
by Moore to express his
own anger and (in the
process) political views
about then US. President
George W. Bush.
Does this effect the
‘reality’ presented to the
spectator?
Is this evidence of Moore’s
“creative treatment of
actuality” (John
Grierson)?
However:
Do statistics such as
“After September 11th
Gun sales surged 70%”
support Moore’s concerns
about the climate he now
lives in?
As spectators, are we
concerned for him?
Michael Moore - “voice
of God” commentary
(Expository Mode )
“We Americans were
gripped in a state of
fear” –
As the archival footage
of panicing Americans
and from September 11th
is denoted to the
spectator, are we also
“gripped in a state of
fear”?
Michael Moore’s
Documentary at this
point starts to become a
form of Propaganda –
Do you agree?
Does this “leave
audiences angry” (Jane
Chapman – 2009)?
“A public that’s this
out of control with
fear should NOT
have a lot of guns or
ammo laying
around” “voice of
God” commentary
(Expository Mode ) –
THEN cuts to the
silent, disturbing and
somewhat voyeuristic
shot of a young male
social-actor confined
to a wheelchair as a
result of the gun shot
wound he suffered in
Columbine.
This can defined as
evidence of the
documentary aiming to
be classed as an
Observational Mode
of documentary as
there is NO doubting
the severity of the
boys injuries.
Visiting Charlton
Heston –
Performative Mode
Michael Moore just prior
to visiting Heston stated
in his commonly
presented “voice of
God” commentary that
(after Walmart ceased
ammunition sales) it
“inspired him to do
something that I knew I
had to do”.
Shot cuts to Moore
outside Hestons gate.
“Why do you need a gun?”
is the premise of Moore’s
visit it seems initially – as
the camera men record
Moore interview Heston –
however this progresses
towards an
uncomfortable, borderline
voyeuristic recording of
the demise of Heston’s
‘villainous’ (Propp) status
as he appears to be unable
to defend himself.
For example:
“We have a history of
violence” is Hestons only
Michael Moore:
“Why do you go to these
place after these
horrible tragedies?”
Charlton Heston:
Walks away – Moore
pleads “Please don’t
leave” whilst holding up
the picture of the girl
killed in his home town.
Does this “leave
audiences angry” (Jane
Chapman – 2009)?
Last verbal code that
leaves the spectators
in a state of
ambiguity:
“It was a glorious
time to be an
American”
What did the
documentary achieve?
3

4. reason behind WHY
murder rates are so high.
Moore’s presence in front
of the camera and is
animated views also raise
the debate surrounding,
according to Stella Bruzzi
(2000) that “..the minute
an individual becomes
involved in the
representation of reality,
the integrity of that
reality is irretrievably
lost”.
Was this moment
constructed and planned
in advanced?
Does this effect the
integrity of the
documentatry?
4