Documentaries

S

SPZ

Veteran
After reading the "Religious" thread, I tought this would be an interesting topic.

I find it interesting that documentaries that are normaly narrated and assumed by the director- Michael Moore, for example- get the biggest amount of criticism, while the ones that develop in a "conventional Journalistic"way- Voice Over, Interviews, etc. to be more criticism free.

I particularly like Documentaries where the filmmaker and/or Journalist states his own POV and assumes his work, vs those where a "voice of god" - also known has "objective narrator, voice over" guide the narrative. "Objective"is a perverse word in the world of documentaries, due to the manipulative nature of the medium- you see what the camera sees, you hear what the narrator says, you see what the edited program wants you to see.

What do you guys think?
 
I think automatically all documentaries are true because the medium is completely objective. ;)

haha, j/k.

I like this documentary called Startup.com, I thought that was a fantastic look at the whole dot-com collapse through one company's perspective. It was well done.

Also The Smartest Guys in the Room, the Enron documentary, was fantastic.
 
the reason is documentaries are suppost to document, events, happening, things other than the directors pov, they should have their facts straight and be opinion free. they are not entertainment, they should be Educational! Ken Burns makes documentaries Moore does not. He makes propaganda films. He doesn't care what facts he has to twist or out right lies he has to tell to get his point accross.

case in point Bowling, when he got the gun for opening the account, he made it appear as if they gave him the gun on the spot, and not two weeks later at another location, after they did a back ground check on him, which was the reality. He LIED,

when making a documentary, the director should look at it as a scintist does, or as a reporter is supposed to but never really does, without Passion or pregidous, there job is to inform on reality not their opinion. this is why people hate filmmakers like Moore, Honisty its required but not delivered.

there are "documentaries" much worse than Moores however, loons who claim that Bush bombed the WTC, crazy people who believe the Clinton had his political foes exicuted and that Gore sold Nukes to China.

if you want to make a documentary, come up with an idea, explore that idea, show what you find, not what you hope to find.
 
Excelent post, Jason,

However, when you start a documentary, you already have something you want to explore, no? You have your own concept of what you are trying to find. Even if you are willing to learn with what you experience in the process of making it, it still ends up your own way of structuring these Ideas- independently of the way you display them, no?

You know, sometimes I enjoy watching some of "those" Discovery Channel documentaries to analyse their use of the audio visual language- the use of music, of lighting in interviews, etc. its just so brilliantly subliminal, that the usual viewer just doesn't notice how much it is being manipulated...
 
I think what Moore, Spurlock and Bill Maher do is valid, they just shouldn't be called documentaries, any more than Borat is. They are more like visual Op-Ed pieces.
 
Batutta said:
I think what Moore, Spurlock and Bill Maher do is valid, they just shouldn't be called documentaries, any more than Borat is. They are more like visual Op-Ed pieces.
Click to expand...

Exactly...another word that comes to mind is propaganda.

It is true that you can't help but have a preconceived idea about what you are doing, or a personal POV. And some of that will come throughin your choices. But a real documentarian lets the events unfold, and bases their choices on what they find. They don't structure and edit them to support the POV they had when they started.
 
Last edited:
Jim Brennan said:
Exactly...another word that comes to mind is propaganda.
Click to expand...

At first I wasn't sure about calling it that, because it's such a loaded term, but after looking at the definition, yeah, that's what it is--

Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.
 
Jason Miller said:
if you want to make a documentary, come up with an idea, explore that idea, show what you find, not what you hope to find.
Click to expand...

Batutta said:
Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.
Click to expand...


Also well said.
 
the borat method

the borat method

I wouldnt call the Borat-Ali G. method propaganda. its a way to conjure the interviewed into saying things or agreeing to things laid into their mouth by the questioner... to make them look stupid and later regret it. I would agree more on Moores films although I liked them. Those are more propaganda type films IMO. I wouldnt call either documentaries EVER.
 
Jason Miller said:
Ken Burns makes documentaries Moore does not. He makes propaganda films. He doesn't care what facts he has to twist or out right lies he has to tell to get his point accross.
Click to expand...

I agree about Michael Moore, but I totally disagree about Burns. He manipulates as well, albeit in a different way than Moore does.

Someone who would be a better counterpoint to Moore(and Burns for that matter) would be Frederick Wiseman.

Also, Ross McElwee is a perfect example how documentaries can be very POV driven and still retain its integrity.
 
Nobody really makes a documentary without a point of view. I mean, is Errol Morris' interview with MacNamara propaganda? Well, maybe not in and of itself, but given when it was released, I would say a big fat yes.

What about the people who made Paradise Lost? They definitely advocated for Damien Echols, thinking he had been wrongly convicted.

Or that one about the "Hell House" about those crack-pots who make the nasty haunted house. It was all in all very basically presented, but I have to think the filmmakers knew what they were doing when they showed the wackos who couldn't tell the difference between a Star of David and a Pentagram, or didn't even know what the "date rape drug" was that they were presenting in their haunted house. I mean, I'm sure those people had plenty of stupid shi* to say, but simply by choosing what to include, the filmmaker is engaging in propaganda.

Even Ken Burns took heat for his docu on THE WAR.

I am not a fan of moore and his ilk, largely because I think they are sloppy. But I'm not really sure there can be an objective documentary at all...I mean, what are some examples?

edit: Ah cool Jim Klatt, we posted at the same time. I am checking out Ross McElwee and Wiseman now.

M
 
Mark, they are totally different beasts. Wiseman I kind of think of as the godfather of documentary. Completely observational, very long takes, and no narration. McElwee is a one-man team. His films branch out in directions that are often unrelated to where he began. He is a patient man who follows the story wherever it goes, into his life an out, waiting for things to boil down to their essence. His films will leave you laughing, crying, and pondering.

I love all of his films, most of all Time Indefinate, Sherman's March, Six O'Clock News, and Bright Leaves.
 
Mark Harris said:
I am not a fan of moore and his ilk, largely because I think they are sloppy. But I'm not really sure there can be an objective documentary at all...I mean, what are some examples?
Click to expand...

No, no documentary is objective, however, as others have stated, the difference is whether or not you go into your subject with an objective state of mind. You can come to an opinion in the editing room, but while researching and filming your subject you should be open to all facts.
 
I think even beyond that, Batutta, is that when going into a "subject" you have to be open to the possibility that the subject will change into a different subject, and maybe even a different film.

I think that the best state of mind to go into investigation would be curiousity. My favorite documentaries are usually by people who are investigating something that they don't have answers for, and should be open to the idea that they might not find an answer.
 
There is a difference between having a POV and making choices based on what you find, and fabricating and misleading to support that POV

Paradise Lost, Titicut Follies and Brother's Keeper are good examples of the former. They may seem to have an opinion, but it was formed in the process of making the doc. They didn't create something to support the opinion they had beforehand.

Good docs don't spoon feed you. They make you think and determine for yourself.
 
Last edited:
I think that one of the hardest things for me with documentaries is when to stop filming. Each subject of investigation has so many influences that it is hard to know where to follow and when to stop exhausting angles.

Productions that have to be done by a certain day because of film festivals and budgets etc. are at
a clear disadvantage in producing something strong, because they put the product before the subject. I really think you have to be a master of patience and honor the subject for as long as it takes til you can say okay I have treated you fairly. This can take years and it might not even be that good! Which for obvious reasons is hard for a filmmaker if they are trying to make a living. Thank goodness for grants.

On other hand, you know what is a "in the right place at the right time" documentary that is very riveting and dynamic? Harlan County USA.
 
Great points everyone.

I do tend to agree with Mark Harris when he questions with "Can there be an objective documentary at all"- All in all, the journalist/filmmaker doing the documentary is someone that needs to add the information he gets, piece by piece- as much objective as he wants to be, its still the way he perceives the gattered information that goes into the final cut. It probably can be as objective as the filmmaker/journalist own perception of the objectivity of the event/fact/topic portraied, but is it trully objective?

What I don't like in some documentaries is the way the filmmaker/journalist hides behind a very well casted voice ( Morgan Freeman comes to mind) and guides you trough footage and the whole documentary. this is subliminal propaganda.

I agree with you, Battuta. I also consider Moore's work "valid". Now I find it interesting is that if someone is lying in a documentary, for example, can they be liable? Can they be sued for difamation in the USA?
 
Last edited:
The nightly news is just as much propaganda as a Michael Moore doc, but then again the term propaganda can be through around quite easily.

Moore's work is just as valid as the president telling us something (I wont go into details) it's all from their POV. I hate that Moore has to rig things in his work (just check out Manufacturing Dissent to see some examples) because for some reason it makes people dismiss the truths he also presents which are there too.

What people don't do enough is verify facts, but we are all guilty really.

Even the documentary that tries to be the most objective possible is still loaded, no way around it. Think about the ultimate documentary, the one we see everyday through our own eyes, that we call life, its a subjective POV and always will be.
 
Kubrick71 said:
The nightly news is just as much propaganda as a Michael Moore doc, but then again the term propaganda can be through around quite easily.

Moore's work is just as valid as the president telling us something (I wont go into details) it's all from their POV. I hate that Moore has to rig things in his work (just check out Manufacturing Dissent to see some examples) because for some reason it makes people dismiss the truths he also presents which are there too.

What people don't do enough is verify facts, but we are all guilty really.

Even the documentary that tries to be the most objective possible is still loaded, no way around it. Think about the ultimate documentary, the one we see everyday through our own eyes, that we call life, its a subjective POV and always will be.
Click to expand...


Excelent post!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top