The Sting Of Galflies

The Sting of Gadflies

ÐŽoÐŽ­We are against this warÐŽ­ Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you!ÐŽ± the American director Michael Moore addressed passionately about the war on Iraq after he won the 2003 Academy Award for Best Documentary Film with his movie Bowling for Columbine. Almost instantly, the audience in the Kodak Theatre burst into a state of excitement and panic, sending him a mixture of applause and booing. This scene was televised all over the world and with no surprise, raised even more debate over Mr. MooreЎЇs already controversial film.

Bowling for Columbine was a film aimed at the issue of gun violence in America, in which Michael Moore explored why there was a much higher number of gun related crimes in the US then any other developed countries. ÐŽoMoore cannot single out a villain to blame for this fact, because it seems to emerge from a national desire to be armedÐŽ±(1); indirectly however, Mr. Moore tried to link this desire to his countryЎЇs aggressive foreign policies and domestic racial conflicts. Unfortunately, I find the part of his film about the image of Canada unconvincing, at least not comprehensive.

Many right-winged, conservative viewers find this movie and its political implication rather offensive and troublesome, like a gadflyЎЇs sting. Film reviewers describe Moore as a ÐŽoliars and hypocriteÐŽ±, and he has drawn many criticisms on his film tactics. ÐŽoThe problem is, once you delve beneath the humour, it turns out [Michael MooreЎЇs] ÐŽ®facts and hard-core analysisЎЇ are frequently inaccurate, contradictory and confused.ÐŽ± Stated film critics Ben Fritz (2). In his review, Mr. Fritz mentioned issues such as the inaccurate statistics in Bowling, the distortion of TV ads, the daring attempt of equating the NRA with the KKK and the interview with Charlton Heston, the president of the National Rifle Association, which ridiculed his image. Well, after surveying over a few film reviews however, it appears that even those who sternly criticized Mr. MooreЎЇs credibility in some way agreed that Bowling was a powerful piece, and that the directorЎЇs script was hilarious yet moving at times. As a foreign viewer, I do not have much concern over Mr. MooreЎЇs political position, and find many of his points amusing, in particular, a section in the film about Canada greatly interests me.

About half way through the film, Michael Moore travelled north to examine the gun control issue in Canada, in order to provide a contrast from the ÐŽoculture of fearÐŽ± in the south. Moore claimed that Canada is similar to US in many ways, such as racial diversity, high unemployment rate, and teenage obsession over violent movies and videogames. To many peopleЎЇs surprise, both countries have a high number of guns per capita. In Canada, there are approximately as high as 7 million guns in 10 million families, but it has a much lower gun homicide rate. Moore and his crews interviewed a wide range of people, from politicians, police officers, unemployed workers to teenagers skipping classes; they studied the Canadian welfare system, Canadian slum and even tried to confirm the ÐŽounlocking door mythÐŽ± in the Toronto area. The director concluded that what distinguishes Canada from the US was that the CanadiansЎЇ self-reliance and faith in calm negotiation. Perhaps it corresponds to what John Hagan, a professor of sociology of the University of Toronto, stated in his book The Disreputable Pleasures: ÐŽoÐŽ­that cultural and historical factors have combined to produce a conservatizing effect on Canadian valuesÐŽ­in the United States, by contrast, [has] a culturally pervasive spirit of individualismÐŽ­ÐŽ± (3).

For decades, Canada enjoyed the reputation as a peaceful and tolerant society in the world, and for year topped the UNЎЇs list of the most desirable country to live in. The generous immigration laws, comprehensive welfare system, low crime rate and modest foreign policies all contributed to this appealing image and formed a sharp contrast from the insecure and dangerous US society portrayed in Bowling. Yet, his utopia-like description seemed rather remote to me; unlike Mr. Moore, I have been living in Vancouver for the past three years.

The first thing that draws my attention to was MooreЎЇs statistics: in year 2002, 165 Canadians were killed by guns, while in the United States the number was 11,127. That is an enormous gap, but when we inspect his data more carefully, we find that there are only 68 gun