The current appeal of Documentaries? (1 Viewer)

[chris winters]

I would love to hear your views of macnamera. Having seen the doc fog of war, I came away with respect for the man. He seemes exceptionally articulate, proud, and intelligent. He admitted to his sins, and was often a victem of circumstance. I of course have issues with many of the actions taken while he was at the helm. I would love to hear from folks who were around durring much of the controversy.

As to Michael Moore,yes he uses tools used by many who make docs. I think a lot of the controversy stems from the directly political subjact matter of his films. You can make a doc about nature, or Nanuk, or birds migrating etc...and edit and hedge the data to create drama. But when your dealing with a directly political agenda, and facts that are the very point of your movie, it seems that your facts should justly be under close scrutany. Thats what inches it towards propoganda. His facts are what hes selling to prove and excentuate his often pompus punchlines, and when you stack the deck to sell those same points it comes off as dishonest. He markets his stuff as expose, inflamatory journalism, and thats the difference. Journalism does have a moral obligation to try and tell the truth, fox news not withstanding.

I would love to watch a movie about all the corporate hypocracy, and war mongering of the bush white house, but I have to be able to trust in the facts the filmaker is selling me for it to be any more then a dressed up saturday night live sketch. It undrmines the facts that are accurate, becuase it casts the whole movie in doubt.

 

[chris winters]

I would love to hear your views of macnamera. Having seen the doc fog of war, I came away with respect for the man. He seemes exceptionally articulate, proud, and intelligent. He admitted to his sins, and was often a victem of circumstance. I of course have issues with many of the actions taken while he was at the helm. I would love to hear from folks who were around durring much of the controversy.

As to Michael Moore,yes he uses tools used by many who make docs. I think a lot of the controversy stems from the directly political subjact matter of his films. You can make a doc about nature, or Nanuk, or birds migrating etc...and edit and hedge the data to create drama. But when your dealing with a directly political agenda, and facts that are the very point of your movie, it seems that your facts should justly be under close scrutany. Thats what inches it towards propoganda. His facts are what hes selling to prove and excentuate his often pompus punchlines, and when you stack the deck to sell those same points it comes off as dishonest. He markets his stuff as expose, inflamatory journalism, and thats the difference. Journalism does have a moral obligation to try and tell the truth, fox news not withstanding.

I would love to watch a movie about all the corporate hypocracy, and war mongering of the bush white house, but I have to be able to trust in the facts the filmaker is selling me for it to be any more then a dressed up saturday night live sketch. It undrmines the facts that are accurate, becuase it casts the whole movie in doubt.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I think one of the problems with Michael Moore specifically is the way he injects himself into the story. It's good that he makes his documentaries with a goal of being entertaining movies - you've got to make people want to hear your message - but while not all his films have been as self-indulgent as The Big One, there's often a feeling that they are as much about Michael Moore as they are about their primary subject. For better or worse, many want the filmmaker to fade into the background.

Also, he's seemed more than a little hypocritical at times. Bowling For Columbine, especially, seemed to be subject to that; on the one hand he's talking about the media creating an atmosphere of fear, but on the other hand he's using the exact same methods. I also remember (vaguely) that he weaseled his way out of a lawsuit over a segment on TV Nation by claiming that it was a fiction program, which I certainly don't remember it being sold as.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I think one of the problems with Michael Moore specifically is the way he injects himself into the story. It's good that he makes his documentaries with a goal of being entertaining movies - you've got to make people want to hear your message - but while not all his films have been as self-indulgent as The Big One, there's often a feeling that they are as much about Michael Moore as they are about their primary subject. For better or worse, many want the filmmaker to fade into the background.

Also, he's seemed more than a little hypocritical at times. Bowling For Columbine, especially, seemed to be subject to that; on the one hand he's talking about the media creating an atmosphere of fear, but on the other hand he's using the exact same methods. I also remember (vaguely) that he weaseled his way out of a lawsuit over a segment on TV Nation by claiming that it was a fiction program, which I certainly don't remember it being sold as.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

The current appeal of documentaries is explained by ONE THING:


IT IS AN ELECTION YEAR.


Ask yourself this, why are most of the documentaries of current acclaim liberal or leftist in their message? Could it be b/c there is a vulnerable incumbent in office?

I am not making a judgment here, I am merely stating that I think it is obvious that many of the filmmakers have an agenda. A comparison to Vietnam and Iraq is made, and suddenly there is a documentary challenging our foreign policy in Vietnam?

 

[Anthony Clifton]

Yeah, because no one had ever challenged foreign policy before. Not to mention that the film was shown at Cannes in May of 2003, having been filmed long before the current conflict in Iraq began. Or should I say "previous conflict" since the 'mission' was 'accomplished'?

Also, I really enjoyed Spellbound except for its silly 'leftist/liberal' propoganda.

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

In my desire to avoid derailing this excellent thread (or getting it closed for "political" content), I'm just going to suggest that those with a significant chunk of free time do a Yahoo search for "Michael Moore fabrication" and sit down for a few hours of good reading.

 

[George See]

No matter what you may think of the views of Michael Moore, I like that he will be discussing/defending the questions that arise on his website. It appears he's setting up a blog, this could be a great oppurtunity to allow a dialog to exist between the viewers and the creator. Something that is normally reserved for just a few special screenings.

 

[Michael Reuben]

That's excellent advice, and I hope everyone takes it to heart. A number of comments in this thread have brought it to the edge of being closed.

M.

 

[Pascal A]

My favorite documentaries this year so far are Born into Brothels and Persons of Interest and even though the stories in the latter film are triggered by immediate post 9/11 policy, both films are really more about humanism and compassion, and I don't see that either are patented by any kind of factional leanings.

In the past few years, there has certainly been a lot of blurring between fiction and non-fiction, not just internationally with Abbas Kiarostami or Jia Zhange-ke, but with films as critically diverse as Gummo and Elephant. Anyway, I see the popularity of documentaries as being more of the public's appetite for intimate, human interest stories that aren't always being delivered by some feature films, more so than any advancement of political agenda.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Moore was on the Daily Show last night. Stewart asked him right away if he is fair, and Moore flat out said, "No." He insisted the facts themselves are facts, but his opinion is of course the point of the film.

And that's what documentaries actually are- the viewpoint and feelings of the filmmaker(s).

To "accuse" him of that is like "accusing" a priest of being "pro-Christian."

Peope who hate or worship Moore I think have the wrong idea, or they're looking to project their strict ideological biases on things.

 

[Stevan Lay]

Perhaps. But I also think that there has been a higher number of documentaries in the past two years or so that has been bankrolled due to our fascination with 'reality'.

(I wonder if there are any statistics out there that could back up that assumption? That is, the number of documentaries produced in the last decade broken down by subsequent years?)

 

[George See]

Maybee we can pull up some rough numbers from the IMDB i'll take a look see what pops up.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Back on topic, no less a critic than Jonathan Rosenbaum (who also always has an agenda), writes that ‘…the documentary is coming into its own these days’ and goes on to compare the documentaries being made now to excitement generated by foreign films in the 60s.

Documentaries are not journalism (as you well know Chris) and should not be mistaken for it.

Of course those making documentaries have an agenda. No one would make one without a reason (agenda). Capturing the Friedman’s very most certainly has an agenda, but it is hardly political. In that vein, let us look at some recent, high profile documentaries made about the same time and a little before and after, as The Fog of War (and I agree with Michael, anyone who thinks that this is about ‘challenging our policy in Vietnam’, has not seen the movie, has not read McNamara’s book and is unfamiliar with his background before, during and after that war).

·Control Room—very political—I have not yet seen this
·Fahrenheit 9/11—ditto
·Bowling for Columbine—political and openly so.
·Balseros—about Cuban refugees—a film with an agenda—but hardly lefist.
·The Weather Underground—ditto—this film reflects very badly on the leftist, student movement during Vietnam, showing it to be fragmented, consisting of misguided, power hungry young people whose actions and rationale are compared to Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
·My Architect: A Son’s Journey—another film with an agenda, but a personal one, as a neglected, illegitimate son tries to come to terms with his father, Louis Kahn.
·Capturing the Friedmans—examines self confessed child molesters with a view that very most probably the son may not have been guilty. A very big agenda, but nothing political, other than looking at local law enforcement practices.
·Spellbound—hardly political.
·Daughter from Danang—not really about Vietnam, as you might guess from the name, nor about the war.
·Winged Migration—a nature doc, with an agenda about not mistreating animals.
·Prisoner of Paradise—about pre-war Germany cabarets and performing—sort of a real life Cabaret

Now I was very fair, only picking out Oscar nominations for the last two years. And actually I only included overtly political documentaries from this year. There are plenty realesed this year that have nothing to do with elections.

It helps to check the facts before making sweeping statements.

 

[Michael Reuben]

One of the very best documentaries of recent years. As much as I respect Erol Morris, had I been an Academy member, this one would have gotten my vote.

M.

 

[Lew Crippen]

As much as I liked The Fog of War (and I read your comments carefully—even if I’d not remembered the details of the ones you made on Control Room ), I’d have to say that I think that the Academy collectively gave one of their ‘make-up’ awards.

How Gates of Heaven could not have won (of course it had to be nominated first—an even bigger issue) is beyond me. And to follow that up ten years later by also completely ignoring The Thin Blue Line is equally confounding.

I thought that your choice (My Architect was profoundly moving.

 

[Michael Reuben]

My Architect is a good example of a story so bizarre that it would be dismissed as improbable nonsense if you tried to present it as fiction. Touching the Void is another example.

One factor in the new popularity of documentaries that hasn't been mentioned so far is HBO. The same division that funds such drivel as Taxicab Confessions has supported documentaries in both distribution and production on a scale not previously seen from an arm of a major media company. For example, they were a major force behind Capturing the Friedmans, and the DVD is from HBO Home Video.

M.

 

[chris winters]

Another beef I have with Moore, and this is totally personal, is his representation of my home state of Michigan. It is of course his right to do so, but he consistently portrays, what I always found to be a beautiful state, full of very educated and intellectual people as nothing but a state full of backwater rubes, and hillbillies. Bowling had at least 4 different segments with the folks of michigan acting like idiots, and gun freaks. I now live in L.A. so when seeing this with the self proclaimed "urban elite" they ate up every second of it. Laughing unconrollable, and applauding at the hijinks of michigan's unwashed masses. Of course I felt anger, but had to go with it. Yes he was portraying a select few to make his points, but it didnt help the fact that thats the only view this audience ever had of the state, and they couldnt get enough. So hes completely within his rights to make the film as he did, and yes what he showed does exist, but on a personal level it stills bugs me to this day. I can only imagine what the folks of collumbine must be feeling. despite all that I can still admire and laugh at the film, and I will be seeing Farenheit this weekend.

 

[george kaplan]

Or do the same for anyone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, and find just as much to read about.

 

[Lew Crippen]

While Michigan is not my home state, it is my wife’s and we lived in Lansing for almost 20 years.

And we saw ‘Columbine’ in Dallas. I can’t say that I reacted the way you did, but I can understand how you feel. Perhaps a part of it is, that I’ve been to the Traverse City area (for example) many times, and I know full well how beautiful it is—and so I just thought that the getting the free gun from the bank was just funny.

As far as the interview with the militia, I just know that pretty much any state has their share of fringe elements, so I just passed that by. Plus, I can remember being on a tour in Australia and the guide commented when he learned I was from Texas, ‘Oh you come from the state where they like to kill people’.

Now this really angered me, but as Texas is pretty well known (and accurately) for the number of executions each year, there is not a lot to say.

Also, in the end, Moore always comes across as really liking his home state—he just does not like some of the things that corporations and individuals do to it.