The award-winning documentary film has been very effective in cultivating social awareness and political conscious ness among those who have seen it. Moore practically tried to elicit criticisms and educated assessment and evaluation regarding the social setting to which young Americans are exposed to at present. Moore was able to incorporate wider and more serious social dilemmas and issues that beset the America’s international relations among other countries by rooting the film from relatively simpler social problems in the school system and the media, as well as the concept of fear and that of the underlying causes and implications of violence.
Moore has been quick to point out some distinguishing statistical differences among the countries of Germany, Japan, and Canada comparing them with the violence and crime rates in the United States. Although the figures presented in the documentary are criticized to be misleading and biased, Moore was able to emphasize that America experiences violence and gun-related crimes more severely than those of the mentioned countries. Other criticisms include the different definition and scope of statistical data gathered in the said countries thereby consciously illustrating the USA in the bad side of the issue being presented and discussed in the film. Pro-guns criticized the film for not taking into account the fact that higher homicide records using hand guns are highly correlated to the fact that handguns are the most demanded type of gun in the US market which rationally leads to higher crime incidents that involve the use of handguns.
The documentary particularly utilized the statistics of crimes and violence as well as gun ownership in Canada and compared them to that of the United States. The film claimed and argued that despite the fact that the USA and Canada has almost the same number of guns, crime rates recorded in Canada are significantly lower than that in the USA. This elicited careful thinking and questioning among the viewers of the documentary in seeking answers that will generate enlightening conclusions and understanding of the said claims. Critics of the film argued that the grave difference between the USA and that if Canada is grounded on the fact that a significant proportion of the people who own guns in Canada use such amours for their hunting activities. Comparatively, hunting is a sport that is not as popular in the USA as it is in Canada. Moreover, other criticisms include the allegations that it is not true that people in Canada practice unlock doors and cars and such instances of unlock properties are likewise observable in some states of America.
With regards to the role of mass media in proliferating incidents of violence among the youth, particularly in the case of movies, TV shows and video games, such phenomena are likewise in sync with the lifestyles of other people across the USA where crimes are recorded to be lower. Although a lot of studies and researches have been conducted in order to explore the impact of mass media communication and their violent content to the behaviors of the viewers, direct correlation and cause-effect findings and results have been made between the violent media content and vio0lent behaviors. Research findings that support such claim are still limited to some extent by the broad measures of the relationship of the said variables.
The documentary likewise tackles the social contexts and concepts of race and fear. The film has been very profound and bold in its claims regarding racism and other inequalities in the society as differentiated by economic status, religious affiliations as well as cultural orientation along with the other impacts of globalization trends. On the issues of politics-based international relations illustrated in the documentary, the elusive definition of freedom and protective measures between and among territories that follow ideologically opposite form of governance, has been proven to be an underlying root cause of threats to global peace and general well-being and welfare of humanity. The fact is, fear of assault from other countries which leads to standard operation procedures of protecting territories and national sovereignty result to another country’s tendency to alert its war system and defensive structure. Finally, self-vested interest and corrupt orientation of highly influential and empowered individuals and organizations that are driven by their strict beliefs and/or financial claims to gain power contribute to threats of international order and peace.
All these have been wittingly tackled and included in Moore’s documentary which, despite enormous criticisms, was very successful in its argument that constant inquiry of the way things are as well as the questions regarding the underlying explanations on relevant social events that have happened and are occurring to promote collective thinking is highly important. Moore has been very effective in promoting social consciousness in the hopes to more active civil participation in the present social systems and the continuous and evitable changes of the political social structure.
Acknowledgement:
Bowling for Columbine 2006, retrieved May 17, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine
0 comments:
Post a Comment