1. Defining the Genre
Before talking about Bordwell and Thompson’s view, what do you think a documentary is?
How do you identify one?
What is the “proper” subject for a documentary?
What are some examples, either that you have seen or heard of?

2. Bordwell and Thompson Documentaries are understood to be non-fiction.
Documentaries are partly defined by the way a film is presented to us.
Documentaries have a certain feeling (style).
Documentaries are frequently thought to be factual to the point of being an objective representation of reality.

3. Basis of Objectivity Claims
interviews
self-awareness of being filmed
unpredictability (as opposed to scripted action and dialogue)
immediacy

4. Reality and Perception
Documentaries are nonetheless carefully constructed.
It is impossible to overcome the perspectivism of the camera (which is manipulated by the director).
Documentaries can be inaccurate.
Sometimes they purposefully build an argument or suggest a criticism.

5. Bowling for Columbine
Director: Michael Moore
Release date: 2002

8. Segments (generalized)
Bank account segment
Moore’s personal recollections on Michigan
Michigan militia segment/Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols
Local pool players (Brent and DJ)
Littleton segment
Columbine shooting segment ~30 minutes in
NRA rally in Littleton (Charlton Heston speech)
Interview with Matt Stone (South Park)
New student safety procedures

9. Segments (generalized)
Marilyn Manson segment
Investigation of violence in history, popular culture, and media
“Matt Stone” cartoon “history”
Fear segment, particularly media perceptions
Trip to Canada
Flint shooting segment
9/11 link
Columbine survivors interviews
Charlton Heston interview

10. Organization
Moore created this film for a purpose, and that purpose is reflected in its design.
What is the primary argument of the entire film?
After establishing this, we can move on to more specific questions.

11. Questions 1. What is Moore trying to demonstrate or prove?
2. If you were making this argument, how would you go about it?
3. What information would the audience need to understand the issues at stake?
4. Does Moore cover these?
5. What major questions is he raising?
6. Does he offer any answers to these questions?
7. Are the answers that he does give us satisfying?

12. More Questions How does Moore establish credibility?
Credibility in this case means the right to speak with authority on these issues?

13. Political Positions and Structure
A. Missile factory and political segment
B. Marilyn Manson interview
C. Roots of Flint shooting

14. Missile Factory and Political Segment
What is the “argument” suggested in this part of the film? An argument takes place between individuals, often individuals who represent different positions. Which positions appear in this segment? Does Moore “argue” against an implied opponent? Does Moore deal with the issues logically? Does he deal with them fairly? Is he obliged to be fair? Argue both sides.

15. Marilyn Manson Interview
segment: 45:00-47:55
How does Moore juxtapose two positions here? Look carefully at the arguments and the logic of their presentation. We will slow down with this and examine it carefully.

16. Roots of the Flint Shooting
segments: 1:26:35-1:28:10; 1:30:10-1:35:05
Moore sets up the “fear” argument extensively. He suggests that the media bears responsibility for inciting fear through sensationalism and unbalanced, if not incorrect, coverage (ironically, some accuse Moore of this). This segment is a prelude to the Flint shooting segment in which the media is not blamed for what it reports as much as for what it doesn’t report.

17. Moore’s Argument
What does Moore argue the causes of the Flint shooting to be?
Can this argument be expanded outside the boundaries of this specific incident?
Is it a compelling argument, or should be more critical towards it than Moore is?

18. Style of “Argumentation”
A. Irony: Roger and Me (1989), mins. 17: 45-19:25; 52:00-53:20
B. Positive content: Sicko (2007), mins. 54:15-58:00
C. Juxtaposition: Capitalism (2009), mins. 2:25-4:00
D. Tabular data: Capitalism (2009), mins

19. Moore against Moore
Moore is a counterpuncher, a satirist, and a populist.
He is inflammatory; he also greatly simplifies certain issues for emotional effect.
Is this wrong? Is he guilty of the distortions that we find in the people, institutions, and positions he attacks?

20. Parody This is Spinal Tap (1984) What is being parodied here?
segment:

21. Topic #7
Bowling for Columbine, though nonfiction, is still carefully structured. Discuss why Moore organized his film the way he did. You may wish to consider the big picture and/or focus on a sequence of two or more segments. For expansion, you could discuss the subjective elements of the film (and of other films by Moore or other documentaries you have seen, like Crumb).

22. Topic #8
Offer some interpretation for the relationship between Harold and Maude—assuming that it is more complicated than just boyfriend/girlfriend (!). Is there a symbolic significance? You might expand this by discussing why this is not just some Freudian fantasy—which I think it is not—by looking at his relation to his mother and what she represents.

23. Topic #9
Discuss two or more symbols or motifs in Sweetie. How do these symbols offer an indirect vision of Kay’s psychological trauma? You would have to discuss what that trauma consists of first before pursing this topic. Alternatively, you could apply this topic to Mike from the supplemental film My Own Private Idaho.

24. For Next Time
Watch: Harold and Maude