Koyaanisqatsi and Bowling for Columbine Movie Analysis

Plot Comparison

The films, Koyaanisqatsi and Bowling for Columbine depict their plots in parallel ways of one another. Bowling for Columbine presents the argument of the film in a rhetorical way, while Koyaanisqatsi uses an expository technique to express the plot of the movie. Bowling for Columbine provides an example of a documentary film that uses cumulative and contrastive techniques to prove a strong rhetorical position. Koyaanisqatsi follows an artistic form of a symphony to make imaginative effects and contrasts, while also constructing a thematic argument.

Plot Devices Used in the Film

In my essay, I will focus on how documentary and experimental films exhibit various nonnarrative practices to reveal ideas and support rhetorical positions. Expositional and imaginative practices in film often interact and complement each other. The film, Koyaanisqatsi used a rhetorical argumentative style to explore the topic of how technology is taking over everything. Godfrey Reggio, the director, illistrates his argument in a different way by using an expository technique throughout his film.

Reggio uses many different elements that allows the viewer to interpret the message of the film. For example, sound, camera movement, and editing allow the image to be presented in a unique way. There are times in the film that the viewer can feel that the scene is important or there is conflict in the film, this happens when the frame speeds up and dramatic music begins to play. An example of this happening in Koyaanisqatsi is when the rocket starts falling to the ground in flames.

Get quality help now

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified

Proficient in: Free Papers

4.7 (235)

“ Amazing writer! I am really satisfied with her work. An excellent price as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

It is obvious that every image chosen by Reggio had significance in the film. The best parts of the movie, in my opinion, were at the beginning of the film. There was an overall peaceful feeling coming from the slow music playing and the nature. As the film continues, I was not feeling the everyday life that was depicted. It did not seem natural because the music was much faster, and the images and clips were industrial. To the viewer, these details were eye opening. Everything was fast paced, including the cars and there were a lot of factories. A lot of people do not understand or realize how their everyday lives effect the environment they live in. Reggio exhibited a good strategy in the film by showing the calmness and nature in the beginning and then shifting to how our society is now. This allowed the viewer to comprehend the changes that the world has undergone as it evolves. Unlike Bowling for Columbine, Reggio did not need to defend his argument so aggressively. Instead, Reggio’s argument was presented just as he intended, and he did not need to say much because he let nature speak for him.

Arguments in Bowling for Columbine

Throughout Bowling for Columbine, gun violence was the argument presented to the viewer and it was shown in a rhetorical manner, it also includes a bit of contrastive juxtaposition. The viewer knows that the film will be trying to prove a point because the film begins by being persuasive. The viewer knows that Michael Moore will be somewhat biased on the topic of having guns because he is a member of the National Rifle Association. This was very odd to me, he is also the man asking all the questions in the film. He makes it a point to say he is a member of the National Rifle Association when he interviews people to get their perspective on guns. While Michal’s stance on the matter made him somewhat of a hypocrite, this is a strong example of contrastive juxtaposition. Michael would seem like he is attacking the person being interviewed when he would begin an interview by saying he was a member of the NRA and the types of questions he asks. Michael came off as pompous and rude, when the person would answer a question and then he would be quick to come back with a point to contradict the answer. The questions he asked seemed to be irrelevant, sometimes causing him to talk in circles, which is not helpful for the argument he is trying to prove. Eventually the person being interviewed would not want to talk anymore because of the way Michael asked questions. A strong example of this occurring would be when Michael interviews Charlton Heston. Heston was not able to explain his side without Michael interrupting, this in turn made Michael look like a bully. This scene was a bit hard to watch. This did not help Michael’s argument at all because this was not a fair interview. Michael would have probably gotten more valuable information from Heston if he approached him differently, and Heston most likely would not have walked out. This technique comes off as overbearing because the other party is not able to express their opinion and views without receiving backlash from the person interviewing them. I feel as if pro-gun individuals are not going to be open-minded to changing their opinion because the argument was one-sided, also there was not a good representation of both sides to the gun violence argument. Michael was well informed about everything he spoke about, despite his arrogant nature. It was important for Michael to be so well informed because he was able to get his point across and shut down someone when they tried to defend their point of view. Also, Michael used sadness as another method to get his message across. People’s emotions were affected when Michael brought up tragic events of gun violence. An example of this is when the victims of the Columbine massacre went to K-mart because they were determined to have ammunition banned from all K-mart stores. The victims were clearly still struggling, one victim showed the representative all his bullet holes that were caused by K-mart ammunition. This event had a huge effect on Michael’s argument and was very powerful to witness.