Rhetorical Analysis Of Bowling For Columbine
In the 2002 documentary Bowling for Columbine, American political activist and
filmmaker Michael Moore sets out to explore the primary causes of the 1999
Columbine Highschool massacre, as well as the roots of gun violence in the United
States in his trademark provocative yet satirical manner. Bowling for Columbine takes
a deep and often disconcerting investigation into the motives of two Colorado student
shooters, responsible for the deaths of over 12 people at Columbine High School on
April 20, 1999, and examines other gun related issues as well. From obtaining free
guns at a bank, to reviewing America s violent history, and interviewing a variety of
people, Moore demonstrates that the conventional answers of violent national history
and entertainment, as well as poverty are inadequate of causing this violence, for other
nations share the same factors without the same levels of carnage. In order to arrive at
a possible explanation, Moore takes on a deeper inspection of America s culture of
fear, and violence in a nation with widespread gun ownership. Ultimately, the
documentary implies that the high incidence of gun deaths in America is caused by
the deadly combination of cultural paranoia and easy accessible firearms that is, to
some extent, effectively established through rhetorical techniques of ethos, logos, and
pathos. To begin, Moore struggles to appeal to ethos successfully due to his
manipulative methods that raises the audience s skepticism in his credibility, despite
using many strong sources such as his reputation, experience, and the values of other
experts in a desperate attempt to gain the audience s trust. Throughout the
documentary, Moore is able to tactfully utilize his renowned reputation as a filmmaker
to ensure that his audience will believe everything that he presents. By dressing like an
average Joe and showing his own hometown of Flint, Michigan, a gun loving town ,
Moore is able to portray himself as the average American citizen who just wants facts and
answers from the people. This is successfully used in the film as Moore seems more
reliable to the audience, and makes his interviewees feel equal to Moore. Moreover,
Moore also interviews many credible people who are able to back