CallaghanFilms
Veteran
It could not have been said any better.
Them's some words to live by (by true documentarians anyway)
Here, here.:beer:
Documentaries
- Thread starter SPZ
- Start date
Them's some words to live by (by true documentarians anyway)
Here, here.:beer:
Jason Miller
Veteran
I haven't seen Ali G, however Borat wasn't a documentary or propaganda, it was a comedy/mockumentary.
Jason Miller
Veteran
but this doesnt justify not trying or out right lying as Moore does.
heres the thing, Heston said it best, "if you say something that isn't true, but you don't know it's not true, then it's a mistake. if you say something that isn't true knowing it isn't true, then it's a lie". Moore lies to make people believe many of his points so that does invalidate him as a filmmaker, and invalidates his films and everything he says.
you brought up Presidents words being propaganda, but are they lies, every president in the history of our country has said things that are or were not true, the question is when did they know it was not true. you should not assume Lie over mistake, because of your personal feelings, just as those on the other side of those feelings shouldn't assume lie over mistake for past Presidents who agree with your side of things.
Dvader
Well-known member
You're right about the lie versus mistake, but I am not confusing the two either. I'll be finishing my degree in political science this year and I'm talking about presidents giving one sided arguments, saying one thing and ignoring a dozen others, and at times lying. It doesn't have much to do with my personal feelings, unless you mean feelings of humanity and that I'm against war crimes as outlined by the Geneva Convention, as I hope everyone is. And note Im not mentioning any specific presidents here because we don't want this to turn into a political debate.
You say it "invalidates his films and everything he says" but that's not true. I've seen Manufacturing Dissent and so along with it I've seen how Moore twists things, but there is just as many truthful facts in his work as there are lies. You can verify it, and cross reference those verifications with even more research, I have written papers on it.
So again I'll state, I hate that Moore lies at times in his work because it takes away his credibility and people miss the truths that are also there.
And lastly, its just as ignorant to believe everything Moore says is the truth as it is to believe everything he says is a lie.
You say it "invalidates his films and everything he says" but that's not true. I've seen Manufacturing Dissent and so along with it I've seen how Moore twists things, but there is just as many truthful facts in his work as there are lies. You can verify it, and cross reference those verifications with even more research, I have written papers on it.
So again I'll state, I hate that Moore lies at times in his work because it takes away his credibility and people miss the truths that are also there.
And lastly, its just as ignorant to believe everything Moore says is the truth as it is to believe everything he says is a lie.
Jason Miller
Veteran
my point is, when we watch a doc, we're not supposed to have to varify the information, it should already be checked, and be truthfull, 100%, Moore has twisted and Lied, and there for can't be trusted and neither can his films.
Dvader
Well-known member
I believe actually that all information we get should be verified, especially from documentaries and news broadcasts, even from textbooks.
And I think it's odd that you wish to make rules for creating documentaries and that other people have to adhere to the standards you believe in.
As people have already said, perhaps the term documentary needs to be adjusted into something new, however, if this was done, there'd be only a handful of 'real' documentaries and everything else would be XXXXXX. A 'real' documentary would give you all the facts, not just pick and choose certain ones, thats one sided information and the precise definition of propaganda.
You said you believe Ken Burns makes 'real' documentaries but as others have pointed out that he is just as subjective with picking and choosing information as others can be, therefore he wouldn't achieve the term documentary either but rather fall into the new XXXXXX category.
I don't love the term documentary and feel its rather misleading because of what people assume (when they should be verifying all their facts), however, even if you give all facts that can be verified, you can still be leaving out other very important facts which therefore distorts your message entirely.
And I think it's odd that you wish to make rules for creating documentaries and that other people have to adhere to the standards you believe in.
As people have already said, perhaps the term documentary needs to be adjusted into something new, however, if this was done, there'd be only a handful of 'real' documentaries and everything else would be XXXXXX. A 'real' documentary would give you all the facts, not just pick and choose certain ones, thats one sided information and the precise definition of propaganda.
You said you believe Ken Burns makes 'real' documentaries but as others have pointed out that he is just as subjective with picking and choosing information as others can be, therefore he wouldn't achieve the term documentary either but rather fall into the new XXXXXX category.
I don't love the term documentary and feel its rather misleading because of what people assume (when they should be verifying all their facts), however, even if you give all facts that can be verified, you can still be leaving out other very important facts which therefore distorts your message entirely.
Jason Miller
Veteran
Im not making rules as I go, those have always been the rules, its just that they have always been broken, Documentary, is to document facts on film, nothing more. what Moore and others like him have mad is in now shape or form a documentary.
over the last 40 years or so Docs, and News has been perverted.
Kids from the 60s have gotten into journalism, there reason being "so they can Change the world" well that isn't there Job, their job is to watch listen and the repeat, like a human tape recorder, nothing more nothing less. however more and more people have gotten into journalism with political motives. and that in itself has dishonored the news.
Burns may very well be Biased, I've only seen a few of his projects. and I'm begining to think the only True Documentaries out there are the ones set to educate us on wild animals, like the mating habbits of the Oklahoma wolf spider.
the advent of the investigative reporter I think started it. I'm sorry but investigating should be left up to the police and the DAs, and the reports should stick to what their jobs are, reading the news, not making it.
and I said when we watch a doc, we shouldnt have to, I.E. if we have to varify, then it isn't a real documentary.
over the last 40 years or so Docs, and News has been perverted.
Kids from the 60s have gotten into journalism, there reason being "so they can Change the world" well that isn't there Job, their job is to watch listen and the repeat, like a human tape recorder, nothing more nothing less. however more and more people have gotten into journalism with political motives. and that in itself has dishonored the news.
Burns may very well be Biased, I've only seen a few of his projects. and I'm begining to think the only True Documentaries out there are the ones set to educate us on wild animals, like the mating habbits of the Oklahoma wolf spider.
the advent of the investigative reporter I think started it. I'm sorry but investigating should be left up to the police and the DAs, and the reports should stick to what their jobs are, reading the news, not making it.
and I said when we watch a doc, we shouldnt have to, I.E. if we have to varify, then it isn't a real documentary.
I think another interesting point here is the notion of "journalism" and filmmaker when talking about documentaries. Is the documentary filmmaker a journalist? Does he have to obey the "rules" normaly associated with Journalism? Is a documentary obligated to follow journalism rules in order to be "valid", or accepted as such?
Jason Miller
Veteran
Dvader
Well-known member
Always been the rules? lol by who?
Cmon man....people don't have to abide by your standards when they create....
If you think journalists always tell you the whole truth then you are kidding yourself...
You are just angry because you don't support what Moore is doing, maybe grow up a little or whatev and try to look at the issue as objectively as you can.
You shouldnt have you verify info? HAHAHAHA okay sheep? Books have bibliographies for a reason dude...
Jason Miller
Veteran
no i don't thing journalists always tell the truth, I'm not saying that, i'm saying they are suppost to, not that they are.
and again, I'm not saying that you shouldn't varify, I'm saying that you shouldn't have to varify, NOT THE SAME THING! pay attentiong, there will be a test later.
these are not my standards, they are universal standards, that are mostly ignored. my point is films that don't fallow the rules are NOT documentaries, to be a true Doc you have to walk that thin line pretty close to perfect.
the films we've been talking about are not Docs, i'll repeat, they are NOT docs, they are propaganda films. again, not the same thing.
dalethompson
Well-known member
The one thing I learned in journalism school is that history is only as accurate as the way it's documented or told.
Documentaries are only as objective as the director wants to make it. I love Michael Moore's films but I'm also a very hard left wing liberal too. I like his way of aggressively telling his side but injecting humour & irony in it too. Hey, if you're gonna try to get your point across, humour is probably the best way to do it.
I don't think Moore's films are 100% objective too. That's not to say he's lying or manipulating the truth, rather, he's not giving you the "but" portion of the issue too.
A good documentary will raise awareness of an issue or person and invoke many questions as well. You'll ultimately learn from watching a good doc and, even if it's biased or slanted in a certain direction, it will also challenge you to explore the truth and weigh rationale vs. myth.
In my opinion, there's no such thing as a bad documentary. If you walk away asking thought-provoking questions and educating yourself in the process, the job has been done by the director.
Documentaries are only as objective as the director wants to make it. I love Michael Moore's films but I'm also a very hard left wing liberal too. I like his way of aggressively telling his side but injecting humour & irony in it too. Hey, if you're gonna try to get your point across, humour is probably the best way to do it.
I don't think Moore's films are 100% objective too. That's not to say he's lying or manipulating the truth, rather, he's not giving you the "but" portion of the issue too.
A good documentary will raise awareness of an issue or person and invoke many questions as well. You'll ultimately learn from watching a good doc and, even if it's biased or slanted in a certain direction, it will also challenge you to explore the truth and weigh rationale vs. myth.
In my opinion, there's no such thing as a bad documentary. If you walk away asking thought-provoking questions and educating yourself in the process, the job has been done by the director.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Nice post Dale
90% of the MSM is owned by coporations, of course they aren't telling the whole truth;
more like half truths.
I'd rather watch a documentary than take the MSM's spin on it. A doc filmmaker is giving us a side of the given story that is his own perception, which we all have on a subject.
90% of the MSM is owned by coporations, of course they aren't telling the whole truth;
more like half truths.
I'd rather watch a documentary than take the MSM's spin on it. A doc filmmaker is giving us a side of the given story that is his own perception, which we all have on a subject.