Points of Praxis

My Blog Reflects on Visual Rhetorical Theory and Disability Rhetoric and their Connections to Classical and Contemporary Rhetorical Theory

In my Film as Rhetoric course this week, we've been discussing Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, a documentary that examines the April 19, 1999 shooting at Columbine High School as it relates to and is a reflection of an American culture of violence.  A number of the criticisms in the class have hinged on Moore's overt bias as reflected in his contextual slant, tone, editing style, and persona, and much of the criticism hinges on whether the movie is actually a "documentary."  This question of genre seems to rest on the assumption that documentaries, as a cinematic discursive genre, must be an unbiased, non-fiction work that was produced with the utmost ethical standards and goals.  As Bill Nichols points out in Introduction to Documentary, since still and moving images are often presumed to be indexical signs, audiences often presume that what is shown on the screen is an accurate representation of what is "really happened":  "Documentary re-presents the historical world by making an indexical record of it; it represents the historical world by shaping this record from a distinct perspective or point of view.  The evidence of the re-presentation supports the argument or perspective of the representation" (37). 

And, I can see the frustration for many critics of Bowling for Columbine; after all, there is an expectation that certain genres meet certain criteria.  Audiences expect documentaries, as non-fiction films, to be as "representative" of reality as possible.  A snap shot of the world as it is.  When a work doesn't meet these expectations, it doesn't fit within the category of documentary.  Audiences typify and classify works according to their representation of the world.  This sort of classification by type isn't something new; Aristotle was concerned with the classification of discourses as reflected in his Rhetoric. The topoi, presented in Book II, are classified and typified arguments and invention strategies; the example, enthymeme, and syllogism (also discussed in Book II) are types of arguments, and deliberative, epideictic, and forensic speeches are three "kinds of rhetoric" that aim at different ends (Book I).  And, after classifying such discourses, Aristotle argues that there are some that are more successful than others, as he discusses  in Poetics:  "Let us discuss the art of poetry in general and its species--the effect which each species of poetry has and the correct way to construct plots if the comparison is to be of high quality."

In the case of Bowling for Columbine, Moore's work doesn't meet the classification of what a documentary is, and, as such, is of "low quality."  However, I believe the problem of Bowling for Columbine for many critics is that it offers a very specific point of view--one that is quite different from the point of view shared by some audiences.   Moore doesn't set out to make an unbiased examination of the shootings.  The news media already attempts (I use the word "attempts" rather loosely here) to do this.  Moore is offering entertainment that presents audiences with his point of view.  Moore is offering a "creative treatment of actuality, not a faithful transcription of it" (38).

I wonder, then, if one problem of Bowling for Columbine for some critics rests on the semiotic notion of "indexical" signs.  As a 21st century student of rhetoric during an era of social constructionism, relative morality, Starbucks, and reality television, I might challenge from whom is the indexical sign supposed to be an accurate representation?  If we go back to the crude communications triangle, are indexical signs representative of reality for the speaker or the audience?  One might argue that signs are indexical when there is a shared presumption of representation; the speaker and audience must "agree" that the sign is indexical. 

Ahhh and here's where the controversy lies:  Critics and Moore don't share similar "representations."  Moore's movie is an indexical sign of his reality, but it isn't a representational sign for some audiences (particularly those who lean more toward the conservative platform).  This conflict, essentially, rests on the presumption that there is a single reality and one either represents it accurately or one doesn't.   And, we all know how any 21st century student of rhetoric, social constructionism, and reality television would respond to any claims of "single realities"...

Nichols, Bill.  Introduction to Documentary.  Bloomington:  Indiana UP, 2001.

posted by: rgregory at 20:14 | link | comments (3) |

Comments:

#1  29 October 2006 - 04:16

 

Cool. So, what's the complication factor, then, when an organization that initially doesn't care much for a documentary being made about it goes through some serious trauma and then decides that "hey, sure, let's make this thing - and we'll even pay for the whole thing, too! Even if it flops!" ? (Hint. Think metal.)

Although it may not be a question of "indexical" sign (re Nichols), it still could very well be a question of whether the film is still documentary or not. That is, we obviously expect, even when imagining objectivity (yup. imagining.) that there will be some sort of bias from the filmmaker. But what happens when the bias not only comes from the filmmaker, but the subject of the film itself (who, as I said, also acts as financier).

Maybe nothing. I dunno - it just came to me.

Mo'nonymous

#2  29 October 2006 - 04:19

 

And I totally just posted that without reading and editing it.

Insert "present in their film" after "filmmaker" in paragraph 2, sentence 2. And a question mark at the end of the final sentence.

-- CA

Mo'nonymous

#3  08 November 2006 - 23:26

 

Okay, I've been thinking about your comment before I responded and it's an interesting question--how much influence the subject (who may or not finance the project) has on his/her representation in a film? I think a mis-representation can cause conflicts or tensions within a work that might make those works failures or much more interesting.

For instance, directors have walked away from films throughout the 20th century because the film wasn't reflecting the artistic interest of the director. And, in many cases, it's the producer and executive producer (i.e., financier) who is controlling the artistic direction of the film.

Likewise, subjects have often been disappointed with their representation in works. Sometimes is a complete failure; othertimes, the film is more interesting for it. I'm thinking of Errol Morris's Fog of War--McNamara went on the record stating that, while the film as well done, he wasn't commenting directly on the war in Iraq. However, Morris's direction seems to connect McNamara's "lessons" with the war in Iraq--a position he made more clear in his acceptance speech of the Oscar in 2004.

Interesting insight, all the same, Chris...

rgregory

Comments: