Bowling for Columbine is more than a movie about the April 20, 1999 school shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. It is a documentary that examines the culture of fear and consumption encouraged by the American media and their government. Film critic Paul Arthur quotes Sartre when he says that “all aesthetics implies a metaphysics”. He goes a step further when he says: “[…] in documentary, every aesthetic also implies an ethic.” (The art of the real: standards and practices). This means that what the audience sees in any film is subject to interpretation, it can be understood from many different points of view. However, due to the nature of reality within the documentary, what you see must be presented carefully. Any use of framing, mise-en-scène or cinematography should attempt to get as close to the truth as possible, as the audience is indeed persuaded by the use of a certain aesthetic. Moore departs from this ethic in carefully constructing his interviews through voice-overs, dialogue, and mis-en-scene to sway the viewer's eye towards his side. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The film meets an amalgam of influential business and entertainment leaders, academic experts, and everyday people. These interviews are filmed in different ways, depending on the interviewee's point of view. Those who appear to agree with Moore's point of view are filmed in a more informal and conversational setting. Those who offer an opposing position are almost mistreated or made to appear unintelligent through effective filming and staging techniques. One of the first interviews is done with a public relations manager at a local weapons factory, Lockheed Martin. Throughout the interview, a loud buzz distracts the viewer from what he is saying, making what he is saying seem false. Moore asks the questions, but is never seen on screen at any point. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the audience gets a completely different interview style in its discussion-like exchange with a Los Angeles prosecutor. They are walking down a pleasant street to highlight the fact that “dangerous” South Central LA isn't really dangerous (Robbers). The camera pans in reverse on them as they walk through the neighborhood; it is calm and serene and the prosecutor's words are clearly understandable. The film's use of color and shadow mirrors that of The Thin Blue Line. Those perceived as innocent are seen against bright, neutral backgrounds while interviewees perceived as guilty or of questionable character wear dark colors and there is a use of shadows from the background which evokes images used in horror films when the monster will soon appear. The very tone of Moore's voice when interviewing people also pushes his interviewees to respond in a certain way. This is more evident when you compare his interview with rock star Marilyn Manson and his interviews earlier in the film with a bank manager. The manager finds a bank that offers a free gun to anyone who opens new accounts after a background check. Moore goes to the bank and immediately asks for the “free gun account.” He has already created a position for the public to recognize the absurdity of this through humorous interaction (Robbers). His quick approach to the front desk, challenging questions and quick, choppy and brief camera editing reflect what he calls.