Bowling For Columbine - Movie Review

Gun enthusiast or not Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” gives the in inside scoop on outcome of easy gun ownership, and the effects of the National Rifle Association after the horrific shooting and Columbine high school. Moore gets down and dirty, some might even say slimy, as he interviews members of the NRA as well as former columbine students and depicts the events rather inaccurately upon close attention as some may point out. The documentary explores the shooting that took place at Columbine high school in 1999, Moore also discovers the easy availability of guns, violent history, and violent entertainment.

The movie goes way back to United states history and shows the start and spread of fear by Americans. A nation with a lack of trust and fear of each other plus availability to get a gun seems to be some of the reasons for such a high rate of violence. Moore shows just how easy it is to obtain a gun by going to a bank account that gives out guns instead of interest upon opening an account.

Moore interviews many individuals throughout the film such as Charlton Heston, who is the president of the NRA (National Rifle Association). The NRA is a group that tries to put an end to almost all gun control laws. Moore misleads Heston to believing he is for the NRA by saying that he has been a member his whole life, and by showing him his member card. Little does Heston know that he is in for quite a treat once the questions get fired, Moore is either a slime ball or a good reporter by this point. He ends his interview on a sad note by leaving a picture of the 6 year old girl who was killed by the shooting on Hestons front porch.

The reporter also interviewed Marilyn Manson, who had been receiving some of the blame for the school shooting due to his Gothic style of music. Many saw his songs as "evil" and said that it sent the wrong message to the youth that listened to it. Gothic music is known to be loud and contain lyrics that deal with death and destruction. During the interview, Manson pointed out that earlier in the day of the shooting was the longest one day bombing in US history, and that if his songs are going to be taken into consideration for the shooting then that should be too.

Other than interviews the movie also contains activist moments, Moore meets with two kids who have permanent injuries from the shooting, since the bullets could be bought from k-mart Moore took the boys down there to see what could be done. Their first visit had no real outcome, upon a second visit Moore recruited many reporters and refused to leave until something was done. Their plan worked, K-Mart agreed to stop selling the bullets to prevent any future incidence.

It is an eye opening movie and contains many mini-clips to keep the watcher captivated, as well as humorous moments even considering its horrific theme. Personally the movie was not for me, but as far as documentaries go it was probably one of the best ones I've seen. The way Moore depicts Canadians is in my opinion inaccurate, just like the way he portrays evidence. I think Moore is a wonderful reporter but the movie was definitely bias to his opinion.  

Social Media: a blessing or a crime?

            “The New Paparazzi” written by Emma Teitel, published November 7^th, 2011 in MacLean’s Magazine depicts how social media is used today.  The article explains how social media's most attractive purpose is a “true tabloid fashion”, as well as how impossible it is to control who takes an individuals photo and where it ends up.
                Social media is used primarily for the purpose of “stalking” or “creeping”, this “invasion is dependant on photo sharing”. The purpose of social media is to socialize not survey, but being able to “track someone’s life without them knowing that you exist” seems to be the number one priority. Many users stated that they almost left facebook when their “right to anonymously browse embarrassing photos of other people was temporarily jeopardized”.  Many people might not understand the seriousness of posts on social media, potential bosses, universities, or sports teams can see these posts as well. Controlling who posts a certain photo and where it ends up is nearly impossible. Basically to avoid a photo being taken at a party and it ending up somewhere that someone wouldn't want it, the individual would have to miss the party all together. In this day and age "if you go to a party and don't appear in the facebook album where you really there?". Generation Y doesn't understand the harmful effects that social media can have, and "doesn't care about its privacy until its been violated". Most young adults have phones with cameras, when attending events its hard not to want to take photos to document the event. Cameras will capture whatever and whoever enters the frame. 

               Personally I believe that people don't understand that things they post on social media will be there forever. I do believe however that if someone does do something (such as passing out at a party) and someone else takes a picture of it and posts it, that the blame is not all on them. You are what you post, and the post will reflect poorly on the person in it and the person who took it. But if you are going to give someone something picture worthy, and they don't understand the consequences that it can have the responsibility is not on the "photographer". Overall I think that if young adults were better educated on social media and what can happen with the pictures, statuses, and posts that they make there would be significantly less invasions of privacy.