Bowling for Columbine Movie Analysis

Written and produced by Michael Moore, Bowling for Columbine is a 2002 documentary that focuses on gun violence in the United States. The exploration investigates possible causes and commonly questions the media, discrimination, politics, social standing and sanity of Americans. Moore controls the viewer’s perception of particular people through film techniques such as Michael Moore’s role, archival footage and editing. Near the beginning of this documentary (0:10:52 - 0:12:01), Moore influences the audience to build a negative perception of James Nichols, affecting their judgement before his interview. This is completed through camera presence, voice-overs, images of arrest, drawings of court cases and length and order of shots in montages to display Nichols as a nutcase.

The role of Michael Moore is presented through his camera presence and voice-overs. Throughout the introduction, he presents himself as sarcastically interested in James Nichol's farming and elicits the feel that Nichols' conversation is obvious through comments like 'basically yeah'. Moore’s neutral facial expression, darting eye contact and judgemental persona molds the viewer's visual representation of James Nichols as strange through his weird career and subtly points to the possibility that he is mentally unstable through obvious ideas (e.g. “ I grow food… for people to eat you know”). Following the meeting, Moore establishes the bombing life of Nichols. He edits a news reporter's voice over the arrest and court case, developing an emotion of surreality to Nichol's 'role' in a plan that killed thousands. Michael Moore further states, "But the feds didn't have the goods on James so the charges were dropped." This implies that James Nichols was guilty, although he may have been innocent. The phrase suggests that American courts let 'psychos' go free without further investigation. Moore warns that courts must become stricter, or people will believe that offences can be completed without consequences. This frightens the audience as 'nutcases' like James Nichols are granted freedom to live with society. 

Archival footage is illustrated throughout Bowling for Columbine to influence the audience's view on particular people or items (e.g. guns). After James Nichols' introduction, repeated images of the Nichols brothers and Timothy McVeigh are displayed, emphasizing how they bombed Oklahoma together on a 'Waco' siege. Michael Moore points to a guilty verdict for James Nichols by understanding that his friends were convicted, so he must also be a part of the scheme. Moore adds videos upon the Oklahoma bombing effects on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and a young child. As a kid, who should have had a long life, was harshly impacted, the viewer overflows with anger and hate while judging James Nichols as psychotic due to harming innocent people. Due to this mindset, when Michael Moore interviews Nichols later in the documentary, the viewer believes any idea given (e.g. James Nichols placing a gun to his head) and any answer or hesitance may also seem suspicious, even when no evidence was provided for his part in the bombing. 

Multiple documentaries, such as Bowling for Columbine, are edited to portray deeper meanings. Following the introduction of James Nichols, Moore presents a montage of his past life. This negatively influences the viewer's perception of his character through the length and order of particular shots. In the beginning, a close-up lingers on James Nichol's face while in custody, displaying the montage's primary focus. Moore cleverly selected an image where Nichol stares into the camera with icy blue eyes and a fierce expression. His facial features are perceived as unsympathetic for his 'actions' in bombing Oklahoma. These aspects heavily impact the audience as it feels like Nichols is 'staring into their soul', which is frightening and makes him look like a 'waco' through unrepentance from killing people. As the camera zooms into his face, the guard's expression behind appears worried or nervous, which unknowingly brands Nichols as someone to fear. In the montage's last scene, James Nichols explains his joy to get on with life. A medium shot of Nichols as a tofu farmer follows this interview. Michael Moore positioned these events to further exemplify the strangeness of James Nichols through excitement for his peculiar career.