The current appeal of Documentaries? (1 Viewer)

[Anthony Clifton]

How many people would want to watch a straight-forward movie about a major US corporation moving jobs out of the country? Maybe lots of pie charts, statistics, a few boring and pointless interviews with the corporation's PR staff.... I'm guessing not many based on the content of the evening news. On the other hand, a documentary about trying to talk to the head of the corporation and personally ask him why the company he runs is doing this and you've got something that people will watch.

Every documentary has spin. Every film is influenced by the personal biases of the filmmaker(s.) It's unavoidable. Turn on one camera, point it at something and film it. Why did you choose that spot for the camera? Why that type of film/video? Why did you light it so low? Were you trying to hide something? Conscious or not, those are all decisions influenced by bias.

 

[Anthony Clifton]

How many people would want to watch a straight-forward movie about a major US corporation moving jobs out of the country? Maybe lots of pie charts, statistics, a few boring and pointless interviews with the corporation's PR staff.... I'm guessing not many based on the content of the evening news. On the other hand, a documentary about trying to talk to the head of the corporation and personally ask him why the company he runs is doing this and you've got something that people will watch.

Every documentary has spin. Every film is influenced by the personal biases of the filmmaker(s.) It's unavoidable. Turn on one camera, point it at something and film it. Why did you choose that spot for the camera? Why that type of film/video? Why did you light it so low? Were you trying to hide something? Conscious or not, those are all decisions influenced by bias.

 

[george kaplan]

I think there's always been a fine line (if that) between documentaries and propaganda. I'd consider Triumph of the Will a documentary, though it's also certainly propaganda. All such films have a point-of-view, and when that pov goes against one's views, it tends to be labeled as propaganda.

I'm pretty sure that if a documentary had to be completely real (i.e., no staging, no misleading sound bites, etc., etc.), that there wouldn't be many documentaries, and if you futher culled out those that could be accused of distorting truth via editing, I don't think there'd be any.

 

[george kaplan]

I think there's always been a fine line (if that) between documentaries and propaganda. I'd consider Triumph of the Will a documentary, though it's also certainly propaganda. All such films have a point-of-view, and when that pov goes against one's views, it tends to be labeled as propaganda.

I'm pretty sure that if a documentary had to be completely real (i.e., no staging, no misleading sound bites, etc., etc.), that there wouldn't be many documentaries, and if you futher culled out those that could be accused of distorting truth via editing, I don't think there'd be any.

 

[Seth--L]

Welcome to the history of documentary filmmaking. I don't know where people get these ideas that documentaries are unbiased. Editing makes it impossible for a documentary to be objective since the filmmaker is choosing not to show footage, and meaning can be created from the juxtaposition of footage. Heck, until the ‘60s it was common practice to stage scenes.

All documentaries have a thesis. Go ahead and try and find one that doesn’t. When you shove your thesis down people's throat, they tend not to listen, and thus, most documentary makers try to be subtle wit their thesis. Moore though goes for the shoving down your throat approach. As a documentary maker you're not obligated to be fair to all sides.

Moore’s style is nothing new (see Jean Rouch).

Now a documentary that truly may not be a documentary is Bunuel’s "Land Without Bread."

 

[Seth--L]

Welcome to the history of documentary filmmaking. I don't know where people get these ideas that documentaries are unbiased. Editing makes it impossible for a documentary to be objective since the filmmaker is choosing not to show footage, and meaning can be created from the juxtaposition of footage. Heck, until the ‘60s it was common practice to stage scenes.

All documentaries have a thesis. Go ahead and try and find one that doesn’t. When you shove your thesis down people's throat, they tend not to listen, and thus, most documentary makers try to be subtle wit their thesis. Moore though goes for the shoving down your throat approach. As a documentary maker you're not obligated to be fair to all sides.

Moore’s style is nothing new (see Jean Rouch).

Now a documentary that truly may not be a documentary is Bunuel’s "Land Without Bread."

 

[George See]

Getting back to the topic a bit I wouldn't say that Documentaries have become more accessible and prevalent than it was say 5 or 10 years ago. I think that maybee Steven it's that your tastes have changed from 5 to 10 years ago and now you are making more of an unconcious effort to seek out Documentaries so they do seem to be more prevelant. Maybee i'm way off here but I think changing tastes acount for your perception of the Documentary market. With the possible exception being Michael Moore, he's definitely on the Map at this point. Bowling for Columbine was the only documentary to play in my local non Art House theaters in the past 10 years.

 

[George See]

Getting back to the topic a bit I wouldn't say that Documentaries have become more accessible and prevalent than it was say 5 or 10 years ago. I think that maybee Steven it's that your tastes have changed from 5 to 10 years ago and now you are making more of an unconcious effort to seek out Documentaries so they do seem to be more prevelant. Maybee i'm way off here but I think changing tastes acount for your perception of the Documentary market. With the possible exception being Michael Moore, he's definitely on the Map at this point. Bowling for Columbine was the only documentary to play in my local non Art House theaters in the past 10 years.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Well said George.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Well said George.

 

[Lew Crippen]

And riffing off George, Brook, Seth and Anthony, I did a little research on IMDb. The first instance I found of the Academy having a category for documentaries was (drum roll), 1942. I’ll just list the nominees (* denotes winner) for the first few years:


1942

* Churchill’s Island
Christmas Under Fire
Letter From Home, A
Life of a Throughbred
Norway in Revolt
Soldiers of the Sky
War Clouds in the Pacific


1943

Africa, Prelude to Victory
* Battle of Midway, The
Combat Report
Conquer by the Clock
Crain That Built a Hemisphere, The
Henry Browne, Farmer
High Over the Borders
High Stakes in the East
Inside Fighting China
It''s Everybody's War
* Kokoda Front Line!
Listen to Britain
Little Belgium
Little Isles of Freedom
Mister Gardenia Jones
* Moscow Strikes Back
Mr. Blabbermouth!
New Spirit, The
* Prelude to War
Ship is Born, A
The Price of Victory
Twenty-One Miles
We Refuse to Die
White Eagle
Winning Your Wings


I could go on, but you get the idea. Documentaries or propaganda? I’d say that those who charged the Acadamy with not holding true to the meaning of a documentary when they made their award of a couple of years ago, probably neglected their research.

 

[Lew Crippen]

And riffing off George, Brook, Seth and Anthony, I did a little research on IMDb. The first instance I found of the Academy having a category for documentaries was (drum roll), 1942. I’ll just list the nominees (* denotes winner) for the first few years:


1942

* Churchill’s Island
Christmas Under Fire
Letter From Home, A
Life of a Throughbred
Norway in Revolt
Soldiers of the Sky
War Clouds in the Pacific


1943

Africa, Prelude to Victory
* Battle of Midway, The
Combat Report
Conquer by the Clock
Crain That Built a Hemisphere, The
Henry Browne, Farmer
High Over the Borders
High Stakes in the East
Inside Fighting China
It''s Everybody's War
* Kokoda Front Line!
Listen to Britain
Little Belgium
Little Isles of Freedom
Mister Gardenia Jones
* Moscow Strikes Back
Mr. Blabbermouth!
New Spirit, The
* Prelude to War
Ship is Born, A
The Price of Victory
Twenty-One Miles
We Refuse to Die
White Eagle
Winning Your Wings


I could go on, but you get the idea. Documentaries or propaganda? I’d say that those who charged the Acadamy with not holding true to the meaning of a documentary when they made their award of a couple of years ago, probably neglected their research.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Oops, I forgot to add the unbiased source of these nominated and winning documentaries from the war years:

·US Navy
·US Army Special Services
·Australian News and Information Bureau
·US Army Signal Corps
·Office of War Information
·British Ministry of Information
·Belgian Ministry of Information
·US Army Air Force
·US Merchant Marine
·National Film Board of Canada
·Netherlands Information Bureau

And on and on.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Oops, I forgot to add the unbiased source of these nominated and winning documentaries from the war years:

·US Navy
·US Army Special Services
·Australian News and Information Bureau
·US Army Signal Corps
·Office of War Information
·British Ministry of Information
·Belgian Ministry of Information
·US Army Air Force
·US Merchant Marine
·National Film Board of Canada
·Netherlands Information Bureau

And on and on.

 

[Chris_Richard]

I don't know about in other places but in Dallas we have more art film screens. A couple of years ago we had 1 theater with 3 screens. This week a new theater opened and now we have 4 theaters and 21 screens. This weekend we have 4 doc on 7 screens.

With the advent of DV docs are cheaper to make, easier to conceive (I have 3 doc ideas yet not a single fiction film idea) and probably cheaper for distributors to acquire and sell.

The public seems more interested in reality. Look at television. It is almost all reality tv, news programs, documentary shows on cable and fiction shows that are more concerned with plot details than character development. Now the American Idol crowd is not rushing out to see Control Room. But the art house crowd seems more likely to take a change on an unknown doc than an unknown fiction film and with good word-of-mouth it will bring new people to the theater. Spellbound and Winged Migration brought entire families to the art house.


Lew - I never saw that about For All Mankind. I will now bet that every doc has now been criticized for content. Filmmakers that put themselves in front of the camera open themselves up to criticism. Moore gets more grief because his topics push buttons. Like you said Morgan Spurlock is seeing much of the same. So did Mark Moskowitz but how many people are against a book getting published.

Even among the filmmakers there is a bias. Maysles and Morris have a distain for the previously mentioned group who make themselves part of the story if not the story.

 

[Chris_Richard]

I don't know about in other places but in Dallas we have more art film screens. A couple of years ago we had 1 theater with 3 screens. This week a new theater opened and now we have 4 theaters and 21 screens. This weekend we have 4 doc on 7 screens.

With the advent of DV docs are cheaper to make, easier to conceive (I have 3 doc ideas yet not a single fiction film idea) and probably cheaper for distributors to acquire and sell.

The public seems more interested in reality. Look at television. It is almost all reality tv, news programs, documentary shows on cable and fiction shows that are more concerned with plot details than character development. Now the American Idol crowd is not rushing out to see Control Room. But the art house crowd seems more likely to take a change on an unknown doc than an unknown fiction film and with good word-of-mouth it will bring new people to the theater. Spellbound and Winged Migration brought entire families to the art house.


Lew - I never saw that about For All Mankind. I will now bet that every doc has now been criticized for content. Filmmakers that put themselves in front of the camera open themselves up to criticism. Moore gets more grief because his topics push buttons. Like you said Morgan Spurlock is seeing much of the same. So did Mark Moskowitz but how many people are against a book getting published.

Even among the filmmakers there is a bias. Maysles and Morris have a distain for the previously mentioned group who make themselves part of the story if not the story.

 

[Jack Briggs]

For All Mankind was intended as an almagram of all Apollo missions -- an evocation of what it was like to be one of the brave, chosen few to have flown on the most historic flights of all time. Remember, that when this "composite" space mission is enroute to the Moon, Apollo 13's near-disastrous emergency is included (so as to emphasize the inherent danger in what these astronauts volunteered to undertake in the service of "all mankind").

 

[Jack Briggs]

For All Mankind was intended as an almagram of all Apollo missions -- an evocation of what it was like to be one of the brave, chosen few to have flown on the most historic flights of all time. Remember, that when this "composite" space mission is enroute to the Moon, Apollo 13's near-disastrous emergency is included (so as to emphasize the inherent danger in what these astronauts volunteered to undertake in the service of "all mankind").

 

[Seth--L]

This all goes back to a paper I'm working on about how genre theory is worthless. Labeling a film as a documentary pigeonholes it, forcing analysis and criticism to be limited to what people perceive as a set of rules that the filmmaker must abide by.

Who says that you can’t stage a scene/action/interview? If you the viewer think/expect everything on the screen is 100% unbiased reality just because you’ve been told that the film you’re seeing is a documentary, then that’s your fault for not being critical enough.

The difference between commercial narrative films and documentaries is not a matter of truth or reality, but subject matter. Narrative films typically deal with heterosexual relationships, while documentaries seek to inform and make an argument about a person, concept or event.

 

[Seth--L]

This all goes back to a paper I'm working on about how genre theory is worthless. Labeling a film as a documentary pigeonholes it, forcing analysis and criticism to be limited to what people perceive as a set of rules that the filmmaker must abide by.

Who says that you can’t stage a scene/action/interview? If you the viewer think/expect everything on the screen is 100% unbiased reality just because you’ve been told that the film you’re seeing is a documentary, then that’s your fault for not being critical enough.

The difference between commercial narrative films and documentaries is not a matter of truth or reality, but subject matter. Narrative films typically deal with heterosexual relationships, while documentaries seek to inform and make an argument about a person, concept or event.