tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-88279282011-04-21T16:21:33.371-07:00Mark Fhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03413939477560311260noreply@blogger.comBlogger11100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8827928.post-1098414318846949732004-10-21T19:44:00.000-07:002004-12-02T20:18:21.310-08:00 Michael Moore has established himself as a leading voice for social and political change in America through his work in television and most notably, his documentary films. Throughout these works, Moore has used certain tactics and has raised issues and questions that has arguably lead him to the forefront of the anti-establishment liberal movement. While his films have enjoyed wide acclaim and box office success, there has been much criticism to the way in which his own character plays into the film as the central element in which the issues presented become self-interested and undeveloped. <br /> <br /><img src="http://www.robertholcomb.com/godubya/blimpie.jpg" /> alt=/> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Bowling for Columbine serves as a perfect example of the way in which Moore is interested in examining our culture, the way in which it is constructed and the way in which it operates. Central to all of Moore’s work are three underlying themes: establishing a message, making that message personal by establishing his persona (which has been key to his success), and promoting the area in which he grew up. It therefore becomes impossible to offer an analysis of Moore’s work without offering an analysis of the role of Moore’s own identity and what he stands for. Bowling for Columbine, which is now the most commercially successful documentary film of all time, is no exception. <br /> <br /> Throughout Bowling for Columbine, the merging of political criticism and entertainment provide an effective medium in which Moore successfully brings to light several issues that are of significance to our society today. However, the lines of entertainment and documentary film genre become blurred by Moore’s omission of facts in his self-serving interest to lead the audience in the direction that satisfies Moore’s own discontent with the political powers that be. Although no one can claim that there is such a thing a complete objectivism in the presentation of such issues raised in the film, one could argue that Moore the boundaries of his artistic license are stretched to say the lease. <br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8827928-109841431884694973?l=gatestone.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Mark Fhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03413939477560311260noreply@blogger.com2