Sicko

E

ESTEBEVERDE

Veteran
Exceptionally well done.

I haven't seen all of Micheal Moore's work and from what I have seen it's been hit or miss, but this was constructed quite effectively.
 
I thought he did very very well with it.

There was a rough spot at the end that didn't flow well. If I remember correctly it was towards the end of the Cuba segment.

But, it might just be my personal sensitivities.


All in all though Sicko was a home run.
 
I loved it. Too much actually.

I just watched it last weekend and I cannot stop being mad. This isn't the forum for politics but it's all I have been thinking about during this stretch to the next Presidential elections. It's an important topic for sure.
 
Michael Moore docs have tended to inflame political wars here, so we ask everyone to keep a tight lid on that type of stuff. Talk about the doc as a doc, but keep the political opinions either to yourself, or take 'em to another board (talkpolitics.com maybe?)
 
While this isn't the place for political debates, I hope it's not out of line to discuss the ethics of making a documentary.

As a viewer, I'd like the filmmaker to try their best to present the information impartially so I can form my own opinion. But as a filmmaker, I may want to present one side in a better light to influence the viewer to my point of view.

Do we have an obligation to be impartial (or as impartial as we can be), or is it acceptable to manipulate the audience for their own good? :grin:
 
I've never seen a doc that tried to stay 100% impartial; I've certainly never seen an entertaining doc try to do that.

Good docs do try to present both sides of a case, but they have a story to tell and a point to make. They don't waffle. If someone wants a mere recitation of the facts, they can go to the library and read tech journals or whatever. Documentaries are stories.

Sometimes people present only one side of an issue so thoroughly that it makes the overall impact of the doc just stink. Example, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices." That played like nothing but an anti-Wal-Mart hit piece.

The extreme is when someone goes to the effort to actually manufacture or distort the evidence, and when they do that, it goes far past the title of "documentary" and enters the realm of fiction. Moore has done that on more than one occasion. He makes entertaining films, and he doesn't even call them documentaries, he calls them "op-ed pieces" but even so, manufacturing evidence is just unacceptable in any manner of so-called documentary filmmaking. If he wants to make comedies that are "based on a true story" that's fine and dandy, if he wants to make satire that's of course fine and dandy. But to represent manufactured evidence as fact -- that's not okay.

So -- do you have an obligation to be impartial? Not necessarily. Anyone who's absolutely impartial will never be entertaining. If you're a documentarian you do have an obligation to be truthful and to present the story as you see it. And if the facts get in the way and keep you from telling your story, well, you should probably shift your position to align with the facts. If the facts don't let you tell your story, then your story is wrong and you should quit trying to tell it.
 
jmc said:
While this isn't the place for political debates, I hope it's not out of line to discuss the ethics of making a documentary.

As a viewer, I'd like the filmmaker to try their best to present the information impartially so I can form my own opinion. But as a filmmaker, I may want to present one side in a better light to influence the viewer to my point of view.

Do we have an obligation to be impartial (or as impartial as we can be), or is it acceptable to manipulate the audience for their own good? :grin:
Click to expand...

Werner Herzog believes it's impossible for a filmmaker to be impartial, so he deliberately inserts his own points of view into the films he makes. The whole reason we watch any work of art is to see someone's point of view on a subject, whether it's fiction or non-fiction.
 
Barry_Green said:
I've never seen a doc that tried to stay 100% impartial; I've certainly never seen an entertaining doc try to do that.
Click to expand...

While I think you're right with the majority of docs, I think there are exceptions.
The docs of the Maysles would be perfect examples of a documentarian trying to stay 100% impartial and yet churning out some of the best docs I've ever seen (ie. Gimme Shelter, Grey Gardens, Salesman). Staying impartial was the entire idea behind their 'direct cinema.'

So -- do you have an obligation to be impartial? Not necessarily.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree.

Anyone who's absolutely impartial will never be entertaining.
Click to expand...

Never thought I'd find myself saying this phrase...but I couldn't disagree with you more on that, Barry.

Though I guess in a way you might be right...but probably not in the way you mean - take again the work of the Maysles.
I don't find Albert Maysles too entertaining as a person...but the subject matter of his docs is absolutely entertaining and riveting.

I suppose if someone sets out to make a personality driven doc (ie Morgan Spurlock, Michael Moore) then yes, I would agree with you - an impartial person will not be entertaining. But an impartial documentarian can still churn out a very entertaining product.
 
I did mean the person, yes, and by extension the doc (as it's a representation of that person's voice). I haven't seen the Maysles docs, so I could of course be totally wrong.

What I was trying to say was: a doc that doesn't try to actively tell a story is probably going to be boring. And I think it takes someone telling their point of view to tell that story, and that right there cuts out the veil of 100% impartiality. Does that make more sense?

If not, I'm content to be 100% wrong, I'll just have to get some of the docs you mention to see what you mean.
 
Barry_Green said:
I did mean the person, yes, and by extension the doc (as it's a representation of that person's voice). I haven't seen the Maysles docs, so I could of course be totally wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, they are definitely an exception.
The entire concept behind their style of filmmaking (which became known as 'direct cinema') was to be as unobtrusive as possible. Obviously a filmmaker can never be completely impartial - because the act of editing by its nature forces you to make judgement calls of some kind. Taking that a step back - what you decide to shoot (ie. what is 'important enough') is in itself a judgement call. So there is always going to be some kind of bias - not to get too esoteric.

But to give you an idea - the Maysle's docs are pretty much as close to impartial storytelling as you can get. No interviews, no music, no voiceover - literally just following their subjects with a camera. When it came to 'Gimme Shelter' (which I highly recommend everyone see) they found themselves in a situation where they really wanted to get the Rolling Stones commentary on their concert at Altamont, but still wanted to stick to their principles of no interviews, etc. So instead of interviewing them they had the Stones come into the edit room and watch the footage - and just shot their reactions and conversation amongst themselves. Pretty brilliant and riveting stuff.

What I was trying to say was: a doc that doesn't try to actively tell a story is probably going to be boring.
Click to expand...
Absolutely - no question about that.
I realize we're kind of splitting hairs here - but I would say that you're right - but that while a doc needs a strong point of view to be engaging, that point of new does not necesarily need to come from the documentarian. It can sometimes come from the subject. Another example that comes to mind is the work of Errol Morris (Mr. Death, Vernon Florida, or the TV series 'First Person'). Interestingly enough - polar opposite of the Maysle's in style, Morris deal pretty much stricly in the realm of interviews - but I think he does a decent job of keeping them 'impartial' as much as possible.

I think it takes someone telling their point of view to tell that story, and that right there cuts out the veil of 100% impartiality. Does that make more sense?
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree - I guess it depends who is 'telling the story.'
In many cases (Moore, for example) the filmmaker is telling the story - and in others it's the subjects speaking for themselves.

Didn't mean for this to turn into a big thing.
It just happens to be a subject that I find fascinating.
:)
 
The classic definition of a documentary is that there is no voice-over, just let the (non-staged) pictures speak for themselves. You hardly see that anymore, and if there is no voiceover there will hardly be any documentary without any staged shots.

When I watch a Michael Moore movie then I know I am watching a propaganda movie for his own opinion. He says so himself, he wants to make a point and uses his films to do so.
 
Not to split hairs, but the term documentary was coined in the early/mid 1920's with film's like 'Nanook of the North.'
I'm not sure if movies like that used voiceover - but I do know they did a lot of heavy staging of shots and other things many today may not consider to be pure 'documentary' work. The original use of the term was simply to describe a film as one that attempted to 'document' reality in some way. From there, obviously, the definition has grown, expanded, and branched off to many different schools of thought. So I don't know that there has ever been one 'classic' definition of what a documentary is or is not. It seems to have always been up to individuals to decide where they draw the line.
But originally the term was used to describe the intent of a project, not it's methods or excecution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top