Mandatory Viewing

[ednbarby]

And like i say, I don't like Mike Moore as a person. And I know he is a very manipulative film maker.

Jumping into the fray on this piece that Sheyne and Del have stirred up. 

Where in the world does it say that a documentary filmmaker has to be objective?  All film is about manipulating and organizing ideas in a precise fashion to make your point---that goes for narrative or documentary film.  Michael Moore is a poweful provocateur, a brilliant satirist and I believe, a deeply feeling person.  I don't really care about any of those supposed fact-fudgings that the Right (read: wrong) claims he's done in F-9/11, the guy knows how to make a moving and thoughtful film and the majority of the facts speak for themselves.  And as far as the Oscar theatrics go, I'm all for it--when Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and the whole crew can get up there and do the same, I really think Michael Moore, who represents the everyman more than any of them, should be afforded the same luxury--free speech.  Bowling for Columbine was a human and compassionate film, to me.  Ditto F-9/11.  The guys has balls and conviction, and a sense of what is right--at least what is right to me. 

I will follow him, and I'd vote for him too. 

rt

RT, my darling.  Have I told you lately that I love you?

[rtprod]

RT, my darling.  Have I told you lately that I love you?

No matter.  I can always hear it one more time. 

And I you, Barb. Thanks for always being around. 

xo

[delalluvia]

Hiya rt

Where in the world does it say that a documentary filmmaker has to be objective?

This was discussed about MM when 'Bowling for Columbine' first came out.  The response?  Good documentary films/filmmakers are objective.

That leaves the rest and includes MM.

All film is about manipulating and organizing ideas in a precise fashion to make your point---that goes for narrative or documentary film.

Not all of them.

Michael Moore is a poweful provocateur, a brilliant satirist and I believe, a deeply feeling person.

Yes, he is all those things.

I don't really care about any of those supposed fact-fudgings that the Right (read: wrong) claims he's done in F-9/11

Well, I did because I was a liberal defending liberals to my right-wing friends and all they were going on about was MM's "lies and propaganda" in the F 9/11 film.  After a while I had to shut up because I didn't have a leg to stand on fact-wise.  And neither did MM after the criticism came down on his head.  After being touted as a 'documentary filmmaker' he eventually had to come out and say F 9/11 wasn't a 'documentary' but a political film.  Had MM been less fast and easy with the facts, perhaps he would have reached the audience that mattered.  The 50+% who voted for Dubya.

the guy knows how to make a moving and thoughtful film and the majority of the facts speak for themselves.

Well the facts that mattered spoke poorly in F 9-11 and it made the liberals and MM look bad to right-wingers.  Not what we want.

And as far as the Oscar theatrics go, I'm all for it--when Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and the whole crew can get up there and do the same

I'm with whoever wants to speak politically - so long as they WIN an award.  Robbins/Sarandon and company - I think it was - were one time presenters at the Oscars and chose the podium to speak out on their own political views.  They were soundly lambasted for not 'earning' the right to speak because they hadn't won anything.

Then in other cases, you run into trouble.

Years ago, winner Lynn Redgrave was it?  spoke in favor of the Palestinian people when she won her award.  A few minutes later, a Jewish/Israeli winner came out and spoke against HER political POV.

[shrugs]

I really think Michael Moore, who represents the everyman more than any of them, should be afforded the same luxury--free speech.

Agree.  It's just very controlling of him to try to get the audience to go along with him.

Bowling for Columbine was a human and compassionate film, to me.  Ditto F-9/11.  The guys has balls and conviction, and a sense of what is right--at least what is right to me.

Definitely disagree with you on both of these.   MM made some good points - the open-a-bank-account and win-a-free-gun was sheer genius.  The rest of it was very staged - you could really tell - and very manipulative.

[JennyC]

Oh, I am loving it.

On F-911, I have to agree with Del here.  It’s a very effective movie for the point he wanted to make, but even I, as a liberal, also think that it’s very manipulative and far fetch on some facts he presented.

rt, you need to come back with your rebuttal. 

[rtprod]

Simply don't agree at all that documentaries are supposed to be objective.  It's not PBS.  Most doc filmmakers I have met feel the same way.

And yes, ALL film is organized in a way to make a point--that's the point of making a film, whether the point is to be "fair and balanced" or have an agenda.  The presence of a director and his particular voice is there in every shot, sound, camera move, blade of grass, color, inflection, edit and credit. 

Objectivity in any art is an illusion.

More later.

rt

[JennyC]

But rt, shouldn’t we expect more objectivity in Documentary than other films?  I know when I watch a documentary, I come with the expectation that the major objective is to present the facts in an unbiased fashion. I can count on the facts presented and then make my own judgment.   Particularly for Documentary, I don’t want to be intentionally or unintentionally manipulated.  Most of the times I watch documentary as a way to learn history, event, or a specific topic.  If I can not count of the objectivity (I am not talking about absolute objectivity, since nothing is absolute) of Documentary, then what’s the point of Documentary, using the footage of true events to paint a distorted picture?

[twistedude]

Gee...I LIKE MM, and his films, and I don't insist that documentaries have to be objective--if the man didn't have a point of view, but only a scholarly interest, he'd probably be reading books and writing in scholarly journals. It's funny how W can lie like a rug, but MM can't stretch it a little...

Oh: I can't wait to see "The Dreyfus Affiar," when it gets made...I wanna hear all the people in the gay bar in the Village yell"Play it again, Sam!" when the necking tape runs out...and I wanna see Major League Baseball get kicked in the teeth (that last part is a bit unrealistic, I'm afraid).

[Sheyne]

But rt, shouldn’t we expect more objectivity in Documentary than other films?  I know when I watch a documentary, I come with the expectation that the major objective is to present the facts in an unbiased fashion.

Not necessarily true, Jenny.  I think the lines between the different genres of filmmaking have become sufficiently blurred that supposed "traditional" documentaries, especially those that get cinematic release, are a rarity.  I agree that there was a time that going to view a "documentary" carried with it a certain expectation of what you may see.  These days, its different. Especially when you consider a documentary that has box office release.  Its probably not asking too much of the viewer to expect something a bit different.  Certainly a little sensational.. a la Mr Moore.  I mean, there has to be a reason that a documentary makes it to the box office, right?  Traditional docos don't generally make to the Aust box office at least..

I can count on the facts presented and then make my own judgment.   Particularly for Documentary, I don’t want to be intentionally or unintentionally manipulated.  Most of the times I watch documentary as a way to learn history, event, or a specific topic.  If I can not count of the objectivity (I am not talking about absolute objectivity, since nothing is absolute) of Documentary, then what’s the point of Documentary, using the footage of true events to paint a distorted picture?

Its called creating an argument.  And can things really get that distorted with raw footage??  I don't know.. I can't imagine how you could distort a clip of Dubya lying to the American people into something other than what it is...

[starboardlight]

But rt, shouldn’t we expect more objectivity in Documentary than other films?  I know when I watch a documentary, I come with the expectation that the major objective is to present the facts in an unbiased fashion. I can count on the facts presented and then make my own judgment.   Particularly for Documentary, I don’t want to be intentionally or unintentionally manipulated.  Most of the times I watch documentary as a way to learn history, event, or a specific topic.  If I can not count of the objectivity (I am not talking about absolute objectivity, since nothing is absolute) of Documentary, then what’s the point of Documentary, using the footage of true events to paint a distorted picture?

I can't agree with that at all. In this day and age where there's just too many agendas, hidden or otherwise, I think we all have to have the exact opposite expectation in everything. Documentary and news in particular, we have to watch out for agendas. Think Fox News. We have to be thinking all the time about whether we're being manipulated or not and why it is happening.

Documentaries can be "news" and try to have an appearance of "objectivity", but they can also be stories about the human experience. I think of Murderball or Spell Bound, where we look at the people competing in events. In those cases, objectivity would just not apply. The point of those documentaries were meant to show us these people's live and spirit. They aim to open us up and make us feel those people's excitement and passion for their respective activities. The emotional connections may be "manipulated" but it tells the story which in the end is what film, documentary or movie, are meant to do.

[delalluvia]

I can't agree with that at all. In this day and age where there's just too many agendas, hidden or otherwise, I think we all have to have the exact opposite expectation in everything. Documentary and news in particular, we have to watch out for agendas. Think Fox News. We have to be thinking all the time about whether we're being manipulated or not and why it is happening.

Documentaries can be "news" and try to have an appearance of "objectivity", but they can also be stories about the human experience. I think of Murderball or Spell Bound, where we look at the people competing in events. In those cases, objectivity would just not apply. The point of those documentaries were meant to show us these people's live and spirit. They aim to open us up and make us feel those people's excitement and passion for their respective activities. The emotional connections may be "manipulated" but it tells the story which in the end is what film, documentary or movie, are meant to do.

I'm with Jenny on this.  I'm watching a documentary for a reason.  If I wanted to watch historical footage that tells a story or is manipulated to make a point, then I can watch Forrest Gump.

As Jenny says, I don't expect pure objectivity because it isn't possible, but I do expect a balanced POV.  Documentaries DO make it to the big screen from time to time Sheyne - but usually only to the arthouses, that is why it was so shocking when they hit big because they normally don't.  When you create an argument, you are debating and usually only telling one side of a story.  Your side.  You can start drifting into the grayish side of propaganda.  Presenting one side to 'make an argument'.  That's not what a good informative documentary should do.  I would expect objectivity even in such movies as Murderball, Star.  Not only would I expect a good story of humans overcoming a serious handicap, but I would also want to see that they suffer, their families struggle under the burden of supporting them, the trips to the doctors, that they can be jerks and assholes just like everyone else - just because one is handicapped doesn't instantly turn someone into a saint.  I expect to see that.  I understand the people involved might get offended, but are the documentary filmmakers telling a 'true' story or a fairytale?

I understand from rt that documentaries need to make a point, but that's easily done as well.  Several movies in this thread are fiction, but they're about the human side of the 'enemy' of the U.S. in war.  The suffering of the Japanese civilians in WWII or what have you.  A documentary can make a point about a subject like that without being manipulative (e.g.  That the Japanese civilians were suffering horribly and the U.S. was a big bad monster to hurt them - which is what MM does).