CallaghanFilms
Veteran
Reposted becauseCallaghanFilms said:
A I am so so ****ing piss drunk right now
and
b cause none of yuz have apparently seen and/or commented on any of them wtf?
What`s the best documentary you`ve ever seen?
- Thread starter Ian Haugland
- Start date
- Status
A I am so so ****ing piss drunk right now
and
b cause none of yuz have apparently seen and/or commented on any of them wtf?
Duct Tape Films
Well-known member
CallaghanFilms said:
Seen 1,2,3,9,10, and of those if I was to choose to watch one again, It'd have to be Pumping Iron, simply for the Governator vs. The Hulk aspects. What in the world happened to Lou Ferrigno?
I don't think I posted my list, although some of the ones that makes my top ten are also top ten grossing. Not in any order whatsoever....
1) An Inconvenient Truth - Laurie David deserves an oscar if only because she made a power point presentation not only watchable, but entertaining. Regardless of someone's personal politics, you gots to give her props for doing that.
2) Bowling For Colombine - Despite how it's been portrayed, this movie poses more questions than answers, for those opposed to his politics, it is not anti-second amendment, in fact, it gives credence to the theory that "it's not guns that kill people, it's people." Or as Chris Rock says in the clip of the movie, "we don't need gun control, we need bullet control." Also solidified Moore's invented genre "editorial documentary", whereby the filmmaker interjects themselves as character, and has a central thesis they are trying to prove.
3) Fog Of War - Errol Morris, Robert McNamara, & A Camera. This guy proves that third wall does not need to exist, and has given birth to the oft used reality tv tool, the confessional camera.
4) Thin Blue Line - Errol Morris makes a movie, & gets a innocent man off death row. THAT is the power of our medium here folks.
5) Monterrey Pop - Hendrix lights his guitar on fire, The Who destroy their instruments, Ravi Shankar plays some of the meanest fastest sitar you've ever heard, and some chick named Janis busts onto the scene. Less time consuming that watching Woodstock, and more to the point to begin with.
6) Gimme Shelter - Mick's shock watching the tragedy at Altamont is worth the price of admission alone. You can actually see some kind of guilt, or responsiblity that he is feeling at that moment, rare when you can get that far into the psyche of a "superstar", let alone a celebrity, and see them just as an empathic person.
7) Hoop Dreams - Best sports documentary ever
8) NFL Films - Okay, not very specific, but some of the best documentary footage EVER caught on film, and always ahead of the curve. ESPN & NFL Network plays some of the oldie but goodies. "NFL Replay" actually uses NFL Films' slo-mos for their instant replays in their reader's digest version game broadcasts of the week.
9) Crumb - Creepy. And creepy. Did I mention creepy?
10) Seven Up series - What are they up to now, something like 49-Up?
Last edited:
Doesn't the fact that there are staged events (portrayed as real events), and events misrepresented as happening at times and places other than where they actually happened, and real places, misrepresented as places they aren't, bump 'Columbine' into some category other than 'doumentary?'Duct Tape Films said:
Seems one of the most basic qualities of what makes a documentary, is that it accurately documents what's being shown, instead of using what's shown in a misrepresentative and fundamentally dishonest fashion.
Duct Tape Films
Well-known member
Sad Max said:
It bumps BFC into a subgenre which has been refered to as "editorial documentary", although many of these "dubunkers" have themselves since been debunked - but I'll keep my post on the topic of the medium for the most part here, and not that subject, that's for off DVXUser expoloration. It would posit that many of the documentaries on say, the History Channel, are less engaged with being pure documentaries as well, what with their "reenactments" and such. If you want to be purist, then nothing but verite documentaries are exclusively pure, and even at that, they only as pure as your subject's actions on camera, the very presence of which colors reality, and subsequent editorial decisions. A voiceover, in some documentary circles, is an outrage in and of itself - daring to tell the viewer HOW to watch your movie. The nerve of some people, yet that's 99% of docs right now. The documentary, just like narrative film, is a constantly growing form of expression. To exclude a film from the macrogenre on the basis that it doesn't hit on every tenet is intellectually dishonest. What are the tenets? Truth? "Truth" is elusive, and quite subjective, even when purely striving for it, so that cannot be the only measure of validity. I would venture, just like a narrative, that "emotion" is far more important.
Last edited:
I don't find elusive, the concept that showing an image of something, and deliberately and unambiguously and deceptively identifying it as something else, in order to reinforce a point you'd like to make, is dishonest - and is not an accurate documentation of what it purports to document.
That part is pretty plain and simple.
Re-enactments that are clearly and obviously presented as re-enactments, are irrelevant to that matter. Voice-overs are irrelevant to that matter. Subtleties of "Truth" are not the issue; overt and obvious and deliberate lies and misrepresentation are the issue, and while there might somewhere be a place for deliberate lies and misrepresentation, that place is not in a work presented as a documentary.
The above reminds me of Herr Doktor Goebbel's principle of "Poetic Truth;" that is, a greater truth, a more important truth, that must be presented, and justifies the telling of any number of falsehoods, to cover up the inconvenient fact that the 'poetic truth' doesn't stand or come across on its own merit.
That part is pretty plain and simple.
Re-enactments that are clearly and obviously presented as re-enactments, are irrelevant to that matter. Voice-overs are irrelevant to that matter. Subtleties of "Truth" are not the issue; overt and obvious and deliberate lies and misrepresentation are the issue, and while there might somewhere be a place for deliberate lies and misrepresentation, that place is not in a work presented as a documentary.
The above reminds me of Herr Doktor Goebbel's principle of "Poetic Truth;" that is, a greater truth, a more important truth, that must be presented, and justifies the telling of any number of falsehoods, to cover up the inconvenient fact that the 'poetic truth' doesn't stand or come across on its own merit.
Duct Tape Films
Well-known member
Sad Max said:
How many times have you been watching a period narrative film, and then out of freaking nowhere, you spot some kind of car that is time inappropriate, or a figure of speech is used that isn't right for the time? Are those lies? Here's the thing about Moore's movies, for all the "lies" in them, or at least the charges of such hurdled at him, there has not been, nor will there be, a single successful libel or slander suit brought. Why? Because he's accurate, and it would hold up in court as "truth". Now maybe it might not be the "truth", but that is subjective, and again, even the very presence of a camera eliminates all posibility of "truth" - the second you hit record, something is outside the frame - hence, no "truth".
This is just from a business standpoint, but let's use common sense about Moore - Harvey Weinstein has WAY too much to lose to let Moore release movies chocked full of lies, and untruths, he'd simply never do it, and this is from a business standpoint alone. If the allegations were true, ALL the profits from the films could be subject to loss. IS ANYONE in their right mind going take on that kind of risk? And even if one was willing to take that kind of risk, what are the odds that their own lawyers would let them? That would be called a sucker bet in Vegas.
Futhermore, the parent companies would never let movies full of the amount of lies and untruths out their doors either, for the same exact reason. There are lawyers that go through this stuff with a fine tooth comb - nothing gets out the door without all the I's dotted and T's crossed. Disagree with the movie, fine, but question it's accuracy? - I'd question the accuracy of those questioning the accuracy first, personally. Answerable to no one but their web site regulars, and oddly enough using those very movies and their accuracy critiques for their own personal gain. Now compare that to Moore's responsibilities - investors, lawyers, producers, and Sony & Miramax. These parent companies have WAY too much to lose to let something like that out the door. They would simply not risk it over Michael Moore of all people, no freaking way. Remember these companies, for the most part, their relationship with Moore is one of "keep your enemies closer". Ain't no way they're EVER going to risk even a single cent of profit defending that guy in court, that's why his stuff that actually makes it to market is highly unimpeachable.
Last edited:
cinemakinoeye
Well-known member
I think The Times of Harvey Milk (1985, Rob Epstein) is an excellent documentary, very well crafted, and a well-deserved Oscar winner, and fortunatelly, available from Netflix.joe13 said:
cinemakinoeye
Well-known member
One of the most interesting documentaries I've seen over the years is Chronicle of a Summer (1961, Edgar Morin & Jean Rouch, french title, Chronique d'un été).
Edgar Morin (a sociologist) and Jean Rouch (an anthropologist) set forth to make a film with a "real aesthetic" that resulted in the first film to be labeled as cinema verite. The film is highly self-reflexive and asks questions about itself and questions the very possibility of making a cinema verite film. Towards the end of the film Morin and Rouch film the subjects talking about the film after they have watched the film. The subjects reflect on how much they were acting for the camera vs. being themselves. In the final scene the filmmakers talk between themselves how difficult it is to film the truth. At once it's the first cinema verite film and a critique of cinema verite that puts forth the challenges and issues that we continue to debate to this day.
Unfortunatelly the film is hard for american viewers to see, since it has not been released for the U.S. home video market.
Edgar Morin (a sociologist) and Jean Rouch (an anthropologist) set forth to make a film with a "real aesthetic" that resulted in the first film to be labeled as cinema verite. The film is highly self-reflexive and asks questions about itself and questions the very possibility of making a cinema verite film. Towards the end of the film Morin and Rouch film the subjects talking about the film after they have watched the film. The subjects reflect on how much they were acting for the camera vs. being themselves. In the final scene the filmmakers talk between themselves how difficult it is to film the truth. At once it's the first cinema verite film and a critique of cinema verite that puts forth the challenges and issues that we continue to debate to this day.
Unfortunatelly the film is hard for american viewers to see, since it has not been released for the U.S. home video market.
akonachute
Active member
I'm wondering why no one has said anything about My Architect! Amazing.... as well as Bright Leaves, Same River Twice and Into Great Silence.
just some more to throw out there
Dogtown and Z-Boys and Joe Kid on a Stringray are awesome as well
A. Hobbs
just some more to throw out there
Dogtown and Z-Boys and Joe Kid on a Stringray are awesome as well
A. Hobbs
Duct Tape Films
Well-known member
jabdul said:
God bless Bev Harris, and she was later proven to be in "the right", but in my opinion, she comes off as a quack, which makes her message, as accurate as it might be, less believable. Her skills of persuasion, or lack thereof, in my opinion seriously hampered what should not have been a backburner issue. What should have been priority number one after the 2004, and a geniune concern, instead became classified as "conspiracy theory" by most people, that is until Robert Kennedy Jr., and that Harvard professor came forward and cooberated her story late this year. In the days following the 2004 election, she was howling into the wind in such a way that made even those who wanted to believe that some issues were at play in Ohio couldn't, because she came off as, simply unbelievable. I really thank her for what she's done, but I wish that she wasn't the face of this effort. Seems she forgot the axiom of coming off as honest, when telling the truth - BREATHE between sentences.
Duct Tape Films said:
No. As a lawyer and someone who's very, very well-versed in the subject matter of the film, I can only say "wrong" and "wrong." There is a long, long list of glaring and in many cases deliberate inaccuracies, and no, it would not hold up as "truth" in court.
Libel/slander suits would be unsuccessful, though, not because of the "truth" in the film, but because those who would have a case would either not have the resources to prosecute the case against Moore's superior resources (now, how's THAT for irony?), or because the person in question is a public figure, and for public figures, you have the added burden of proving actual malice, which is almost impossible to prove.
Duct Tape Films
Well-known member
David Jimerson said:
I don't know whether you saw this the other day, but remember that soldier who was suing Moore because he didn't like his portrayal in F 9/11, saying that he didn't give permission for his footage to be use that way? The case was thrown out, thank goodness - because that could have spelled the end of documentaries as we know them had it been allowed to continue. Moore had purchased rights from NBC, who had obviously secured all rights to the footage, including synch. This soldier was contending that he didn't like the way his footage was sandwiched in between other pieces of the footage that gave the impression that he didn't like Bush. Court says nope, you don't have editorial rights over someone else's movie. It's a good day for American filmmakers.
I have to disagree with the source of the libel/slander claims though, at least in regard to "Bowling For Colombine". The majority of them, if you trace them back far enough, are coming from the NRA leadership, who obviously have deep enough pockets to go toe to toe with Moore if they chose to do so. The money is not the issue, the lack of any case is. What's funny about all this is really the effect of the movie should have been to their liking, as it sparked a change in my own personal stance on gun control, as well did many other liberals I know - that it's NOT the solution to our gun problems. But that's another discussion for another day.
The thing about his movies, really is they're most effective when they are asking questions (Bowling For Colombine, Roger & Me) instead of providing answers (F 9/11, The Big One). Many viewers are unable to distinguish the difference, even within mainstream media news sources - hence a general confusion as to what he as actually said. My point is that he should not be held up to this kind of nonsense outside scrutiny any more than ANY other documentary filmmaker previous, simply because the very presence of a camera eliminates the possibility of 100% truth to begin with. As documentarian myself, I think it's intellectually lazy to think for a second that if I've seen a documentary on the subject, it is equivalent to reseach in other formats or mediums, or even the research that was done in preparation to the film, yet that seems to be the problem many folks are having with his films - that they can't count on them for all sides of an argument - but he's more like the editorial page, not the AP wire. That's simply not his job, it's the viewers. They're movies for cripes sakes, entertainment; perhaps with a certain bent and method of delivery. As for the folks that would go on to say his movies aren't documentaries, that's freaking silly and pure semantics, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences would vehemently disagree.
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with truth or falsity; it's about image rights.Duct Tape Films said:
And they are public figures, especially Heston. See above.
He's not. He's held to the same standards and it's his movies which come up short. As for the intensity of it, well, what other "documentary" filmmaker puts so much effort into promoting himself and his work? He invited the intensity of scrutiny through the intensity of his publicity.
Yes. Which is why what he makes aren't documentaries.
Again, that's why they're not documentaries.
Do you have a definition of "editorial documentary" which fits Moore's works and also doesn't fit the definition of the already-established genre of "propaganda film"?
There was a GREAT deal of controversy over BFC being classified as a "documentary," and calls for his Oscar to be retracted, and from within the Academy.
Duct Tape Films
Well-known member
It does not imply truth, correct, but what it does imply is that mere disagreement with content or it's manner of presentation is also a matter of opinion, and that the filmmaker's rights in doing creating their works is more important than the subject's rights in agreeing with their manner of representation, especially if they assigned transferable rights, as he did in this case.
Agreed, that Moses is quite a public figure, however, Heston is not the only voice of the NRA leadership or membership, and their concern apparently has not been with how HE persay was represented, as the burden is so high as you have noted, but rather the portrayal of the image of the organization as a whole.
Placing yourself into the arc of your story does appear to have quite a few certain disadvantages, as journalists from Edward R. Murrow to Ed Bradley to John Stossel have found as well. Content that challenges a viewers precepts or worldview may be seen as partisan from those in disagreement, even if it is walking the line, or only answering the 5 W's, & 1 H, or in the case of "Bowling For Colombine", only asking them. My argument is there is as much editorial influence one has by what the camera is seeing and not seeing, and what gets left on the cutting room floor, therefore no other documentary should be exempt from this type of truth puritanism, even cinema verite' classics, as to me personally, to expect "truth", is to not understand the medium. A "truth", perhaps, but THE "truth" - not so much.
Show me a documentary that hasn't had the viewpoint of the filmmaker injected into it in some way, either overtly, or covertly, and I'll show you a film still seeking funding. For me, propaganda implies a bully pulpit, and also implies a hidden agenda, neither of which Moore has, as even with the reach of his films it is but a fraction of the populus at large, and I'm sure you'll agree, there is certainly NOTHING covert about his personal politics. Therefore the term "propaganda film" doesn't fit the bill. I'd liken him to the filmic equivalent of a William Safire (although he'd certainly take exception to THAT comparison), an editorialist who doesn't have ANY intention of giving the impression of "covering both sides", and therefore should be exempt from such expectation. I guess the baggage of opinion being overt, overarching, and present, would be what sets apart an "editorial documentary" versus a "propaganda film" in my mind. Are you being tricked, or are they up front with their agenda? My guess is, at this point, he doesn't make movies to change minds, it's more a matter of preaching to the choir. You gotta know your audience, and it's clear he does.
As for entertainment being why something isn't a documentary, then I guess the Academy really started screwing that up back in 1970 when they let "Woodstock" take home the award, didn't they? To use that as an example, a view was espoused in that film, quite overtly, that what they were doing was in the right. Moore is doing nothing new, if that be the guide. Did that film tell the whole message of Woodstock - give the obvious foretelling of what was obvious to come a few short months later at Altamont - the grinding halt of the peace and love movement? No, they painted the rosiest picture of the hippie community they possibly could, being hippies themselves. And just cause there wasn't a fat guy in a ball cap to guide you through the picture didn't mean it was any less pronounced of a point of view.
Agreed, that Moses is quite a public figure, however, Heston is not the only voice of the NRA leadership or membership, and their concern apparently has not been with how HE persay was represented, as the burden is so high as you have noted, but rather the portrayal of the image of the organization as a whole.
Placing yourself into the arc of your story does appear to have quite a few certain disadvantages, as journalists from Edward R. Murrow to Ed Bradley to John Stossel have found as well. Content that challenges a viewers precepts or worldview may be seen as partisan from those in disagreement, even if it is walking the line, or only answering the 5 W's, & 1 H, or in the case of "Bowling For Colombine", only asking them. My argument is there is as much editorial influence one has by what the camera is seeing and not seeing, and what gets left on the cutting room floor, therefore no other documentary should be exempt from this type of truth puritanism, even cinema verite' classics, as to me personally, to expect "truth", is to not understand the medium. A "truth", perhaps, but THE "truth" - not so much.
Show me a documentary that hasn't had the viewpoint of the filmmaker injected into it in some way, either overtly, or covertly, and I'll show you a film still seeking funding. For me, propaganda implies a bully pulpit, and also implies a hidden agenda, neither of which Moore has, as even with the reach of his films it is but a fraction of the populus at large, and I'm sure you'll agree, there is certainly NOTHING covert about his personal politics. Therefore the term "propaganda film" doesn't fit the bill. I'd liken him to the filmic equivalent of a William Safire (although he'd certainly take exception to THAT comparison), an editorialist who doesn't have ANY intention of giving the impression of "covering both sides", and therefore should be exempt from such expectation. I guess the baggage of opinion being overt, overarching, and present, would be what sets apart an "editorial documentary" versus a "propaganda film" in my mind. Are you being tricked, or are they up front with their agenda? My guess is, at this point, he doesn't make movies to change minds, it's more a matter of preaching to the choir. You gotta know your audience, and it's clear he does.
As for entertainment being why something isn't a documentary, then I guess the Academy really started screwing that up back in 1970 when they let "Woodstock" take home the award, didn't they? To use that as an example, a view was espoused in that film, quite overtly, that what they were doing was in the right. Moore is doing nothing new, if that be the guide. Did that film tell the whole message of Woodstock - give the obvious foretelling of what was obvious to come a few short months later at Altamont - the grinding halt of the peace and love movement? No, they painted the rosiest picture of the hippie community they possibly could, being hippies themselves. And just cause there wasn't a fat guy in a ball cap to guide you through the picture didn't mean it was any less pronounced of a point of view.
No one argued with that.Duct Tape Films said:
Everyone else in the NRA leadership would fall under "public figure," too.
Look, as Sad Max pointed out, once you recreate a scene and present it as reality instead of clearly saying it's a recreation, your work stops being a documentary and turns into something else.
You say it's an "editorial documentary," but I still say you can't come up with a definition of that which doesn't also fit the definition of "propaganda film," all of which have a rather overt viewpoint being espoused. Else, they wouldn't be much good as propaganda.
You're a fan of MM. Whatever. Free country. All anybody here is saying is that what he makes aren't documentaries, especially BFC or F9/11. No one's saying he doesn't have the right to do whatever he wants. The disagreement comes only in what it is that his works are.
Anyway, this has probably gone well beyond DVXuser's kibosh on discussing Michael Moore, so say whatever you have to say to wrap up and we'll leave it at that.
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
MM...I loathe that assclown,
...and something that pisses me off to no end is the fact that he didn't have the common goddamn courtesy to ask permission from Ray Bradbury (a true American literary legend, mind you) to use the title, a reference to the timeless classic Fahrenheit 451. Then, the fat poo poo wouldn't even return Mr. Bradbury's calls, upon his finding out.
No class...no class at all
...and something that pisses me off to no end is the fact that he didn't have the common goddamn courtesy to ask permission from Ray Bradbury (a true American literary legend, mind you) to use the title, a reference to the timeless classic Fahrenheit 451. Then, the fat poo poo wouldn't even return Mr. Bradbury's calls, upon his finding out.
No class...no class at all
- Status