Presentation on theme: "-The Best Presentation Ever- Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore) By: Shane Kincade And Massie Moore."— Presentation transcript:
-The Best Presentation Ever- Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore) By: Shane Kincade And Massie Moore.
- Evaluating the Tone- The tone in this film exhibits both a polite and serious effect, which is most present toward the end, when Mr. Moore is interviewing the N.R.A. president. This serves to help the movie, because having one where the host is merely spouting insults and ad hominem attacks is one that comes off as childish and immature.
- Evaluation of a Solution- Mr. Moore – or any of the interviewees in the film, for that matter – doesn’t directly state any solution to the crisis of living in fear. This may be due to the fact that such a solution is obvious; detach yourself from that fear, and look at issues on a more balanced perspective.
- Evaluation of Evidence- Much of the evidence presented in the film – most of which happens to be compacted into voice-overs and interviews – has a level of persuasion directly linked to the tone. It has a factual basis; for example, the interview with Marilyn Manson gives a cause to why the media, during their coverage of Columbine, are blaming him instead of something that makes some decent sense. With the tone’s already serious effect, it provides the viewer with that idea to think about for about five seconds, before doing something less productive. Yee-haw!
-Conclusion ‘n’ Stuff- Hi, how ya’ doing? The film’s overall content contained a trifle bit more emotion than logic. For much of the first half, numerous references to Columbine are stated, undoubtedly with the purpose of inciting an emotional reaction, whatever the details of said reaction may contain. It certainly helps it along by detailing a few of the gun owners to be paranoid government-fearing individuals. However, it’s not like the film says, “Hey, guns are bad, let’s get rid of ‘em,” because that would be kind of silly. It doesn’t really show much of an argument for gun control, either. Once the film reaches its middle section, it shifts to a discussion about fear, exhibited by the interview with Manson. Mr. Moore essentially says that fear will often be used to sell a concept or a product. I don’t know of any idiot willing to kill a bunch of people because a song they like told them to do the act, so it seems far- fetched that Manson would be responsible for influencing the minds that instigated the Columbine disaster. Toward the end, Moore makes several comparisons between our country and others in the developed first-world (Japan, Canada, Britain). All three of these countries have a lot more guns, but less gun violence. The media there doesn’t broadcast as much “fear propaganda” as in the United States. Thus, the film implies that the entire gun debate may be focused on the wrong kind of ideas.