Well done documentaries

[XCheck]

i think the inclusion of the ceo from the carpet corp who decides to take a much more responsible stance on the environmental ramifications of his business was an example of balance. this in a person, who runs a corporation, who has decided to act in a more responsible, ethical manner.

Agreed.

...but the communists' primary goal had to do with the redistribution of wealth and power, supposedly in a more populist way (which of course never happened.) the obliteration of "enemies" was merely a tactic (a bad tactic,) that was understood as a necessary step towards the realization of that primary goal.

Really? Have you read The Communist Manifesto? Long before it delves into redistribution of wealth, it talks about class struggle. Furthermore, it's quite explicit in its goals:

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.​

No word on democracy, sharing of powers, or (God forbid!) redistribution of wealth. On the contrary, all the talk about redistribution of wealth in the manifesto is subjected to one overriding principle: conquest of political power by the proletariat (see above).

no documentary (or any other film) has ever been made that doesn't have a point of view. personally, i'd rather deal with a filmmaker who acknowledges a position than one who hides behind some sense of presumed objectivity.

Yes, I thought we agreed on that.

the fact is that we won't see meaningful change or regulation until the connection between political power and wealth is severely limited. i think it's great to have faith in democracy and think that the will of the people will make meaningful changes.

Yes, and like in most of history, it's a long, painful, and frustrating process. Most political changes take decades to implement. A decade is nothing from a historical perspective. From a single human life perspective, it's a major part of one's productive life. I guess that's where the frustration comes from. But we really ought to ask a question: are we better off (and I don't mean just economically) than fifty years ago?

We (you and I) today have much more power than our predecessors. We have the power of creating, publishing, and distributing compelling media content, and sometimes, we actually have more power than the big business because people have the tendency to favor the underdog. We have the internet, the DVX, Vegas, DVRack. They are products of either corporations, or the government, or both. I fail to understand how that's a bad thing.

Yes - I hate monopoly like the next guy. I can't stand Micro$oft. I can't stand bullies, be it in business or in the school backyard. But I think that on the whole, corporations (even the XXL ones) have had a net positive impact on the quality of human life. What's the cost of it remains to be seen.

I am tuning out... really not interested in having this thread locked up :beer: . It's not about "The Corporation", after all. I just wanted to say that I didn't think it was a good film, and why...

 

[dat5150]

"The Long Road to Cabo" is a behind the scenes look at Sammy' Hagars tour a couple of years back. Is it a documentary?...as far as I'm concerned it is, its non fiction. I love the DVD....there's so much variety in the shots and effects along with telling a good story. You don't have to like Sammy to like the doc.

"Gunner Palace" is awesome. Best Iraq war doc either theatrical or TV, it should win Best Doc Oscar.

 

[dustino]

Well, we've gotten well past what the original poster asked for - recommendations for docs and why you think they're good. But since you decided to take my 2 or 3 sentence quickie recommendation and quote it in your effort to express your beef with the makers of "The Corporation" I feel compelled to respond and keep responding.

That's a very interesting analysis. I think I'd agree with that, except for a small contradiction I see in your description of the second conflict. If legal rights (i.e., law) are "based in society's conception of morality and depend on the moral decisions of individuals", then the comment "(not laws, ethics.)" seems to make little sense.

You have only reinforced my contention that the doc criticizes American law with respect to corporations more than criticizing corporations themselves. The moral failure is in the LAW, not the corporation. I suppose I should have said that legal rights SHOULD BE or are EXPECTED to be based in society's conception of morality instead of ARE based in... I assumed the reader would understand that the "contradiction" you mention IS MY VERY POINT:

Laws are (expected/intended to be) based in morality/ethics. However, American Corporate law demands the priority of shareholder profits above all else (including ethics. )

Yes, that's a contradiction - the contradiction is the very point.

I would like to see the recent developments as a sign of improvement in the trend. Take Enron, or Worldcom. The Enron guy got 25 years. I think these scandals brought more attention to ethics in business, and I am sure that with a more sophisticated consumer, this trend will continue. Eventually, the "moral conscience" will reach a critical level, and the laws will change.

The Enron (especially!) and Worldcom scandals were only the most obvious and outrageous examples of illegal activity that should've resulted in easy convictions for a prosecuter fresh from law school. The purpose of the doc, however, was not to address criminal activities, but instead how legal activities result in adverse consequences due to, again, flaws in the LAW, not corporations so much.

That said, I, as a small corporation owner, still have to object to the basic premise. What the film makers had in mind was "The big, global corporation", not the small incorporated mom and pop shop - I know because I had some e-mail conversation on the topic with the film director. I object because by its title and by its premise, the film puts me in the same lot with the very people and organizations I despise.

Yes, the doc was intended to go after the big multinationals, but the mom and pop corporations are not immune to the legal obligation of profitability over all else. The reality is that multinationals have huge consequences because of their huge size.

For instance - perhaps a mom and pop corporation decides to lay off an employee to maximize profit. They are not in a financial position where they have to do this, but they decide they can increase the other three employees hours a little and still get by while earning a much greater profit. Or maybe they decide to downgrade their employees' benefits packages even though they don't have to in order to maximize profits. Well, if they decide not to do those things - that doesn't make a huge difference in the grand scheme. But if AT&T or General Motors decides to lay off 25% of their labor force (to maximize profits or "remain competive" - the current favorite phrase) that can devistate communities.

Now, as a mom and pop - you're less pressured to maximize profits and maybe you would never lay someone off just to increase the bottom line. But huge multinationals have powerful shareholder organizations which demand profitability and can threaten lawsuits and force out senior executives if they fail to realize potential profits.

So, mom and pops are only immune to many of the nasty consequences of the corporate ethos because of scale, not intent. The former CEO of Shell (or some oil company) offered this very point. He said he had little power to change company policy because of executives' and board members' legal obligations to shareholders. Once again, the film is condemning the law more than corporations, be they multinationals or mom and pops.

I don't think objectivity is an issue. I think double-measure is an issue - and no, it's not one and the same. I agree with you - objectivity is impossible, and I personally favor films with a point of view. But you need to have some sense of balance.

As someone else already stated, the doc gave a great deal of recurring air time to the carpet manufacturer as well as the CEO I already mentioned. I find those instances of "balance" - though I disagree than a sense of balance is necessary for a good doc.

As a final point - if you look at all the good (or successful) documentary films made in the last few years, I don't think you will find one that doesn't have a decided point of view. Your assertion that "The search for supposed fairness and objectivity is always expected of nonfiction films" doesn't seem quite right to me. However, it's in the very name of the genre: fiction vs. documentary. Fiction is a fiction is a fiction. It doesn't need to be based in reality at all. Documentary 'documents' something, so it should show the 'facts' (if not the truth).

This film does "document" numerous interviews, historic legal decisions, archival footage. Surely you're not arguing that it doesn't document anything. What I think you're arguing is that the film didn't give corporations a fair shake - at least not mom and pops or non-profits. I say this was not it's intention. It intended to find examples that reinforce it's premise that corporations, and especially their legal status and exemptions, result in a great deal of adverse consequences for society as a whole. They accomplished that - whether it is fair or "balanced" is irrelevant to the intent of the film.

 

[KingVidiot]

I completely agree with a lot of the movies listed here:
American Movie, Dogtown, The Kid Stays... , Fast Cheap... good stuff.

Also, pretty much anything by Ken Burns. His style has been copied so often it's amazing. I'm surprised Tarantino hasn't ripped him off.


Back to American Movie, I have seen it a bunch... cracks me up every time.
The commentary is great, with the star commenting an agreeing with himself in real time. Addictive!

The PBS American Masterpieces series on Calder, Rauschenberg, etc. is really good. Also, the Chuck Close doc with music by Philip Glass is excellent.

I can't stop myself... I love docs!

 

[Rasquachemedia]

gunner palace may be the best doc on the iraq war (i haven't seen any others to compare it to). but i would not say its a great doc. Taped on an xl2 i believe and edited on a mac I think there are some accomplishments to praise. Including the guts to go in and take the footage.

The film itself is poorly organized, repetitive, and slow paced. I was not impressed by the editing and the film itself ran a bit too long.

The film has been criticized by some for being too bias. I disagree. The footage clearly shows what the soldiers go through and how they are reacting to the chaos of it all.

The narration has been critiqued as a take off of apocalypse now. I see it too. The narration is pretty bad and the cutaways or b-roll just don't make sense sometimes.

I was going to buy this dvd, but rented it and didn't like it. I was expecting something more sophisticated when it came to the editing. From what I recall the sound and cinematography was good.

 

[double_agent_oo2]

Question:

Are there any documentaries out there that were made using a dvx and accessible for rental or purchase? I know Murderball was made, in part, with a dvx but I can't get to a theatre playing it and am sure that it will be a while before its on dvd.

My interest of course is to see the quality of the dvx when it comes to a doc. With fiction and music videos there is more time to focus on composition, lighting, etc. But with a doc some stuff needs to be done with little or no control over lighting etc. (this does not buy may include interviews).

I am very impressed with what the dvx can do in and would like to see how it performs with say a video journalism style.

Any references to dvd's or web docs would be great?

thnx

I know of a doc (that I liked) called BattleGround: 21 Days on the Empire's Edge that was shot on a couple of DVX100s in Iraq, it was showing on Showtime but that was a while ago. Showtime Page with Trailer

Oh, on it's official site, it says it's coming out on dvd November 1st. Long wait.
Official Site

 

[Rasquachemedia]

thnx double agent,

that looks great. It also looks like I'm going to get a chance to see murderball this week and look forward to checking it out.

 

[dustino]

Question:

I know Murderball was made, in part, with a dvx but I can't get to a theatre playing it and am sure that it will be a while before its on dvd.

My interest of course is to see the quality of the dvx when it comes to a doc. With fiction and music videos there is more time to focus on composition, lighting, etc.

Hey Rasquachemedia,
Do you know if the DVX stuff was shot in 24p or 60i? I'm also interested in seeing how the DVX holds up (in 24p especially) in run and gun situations. Almost saw that this weekend but saw Hustle & Flow instead because I was too lazy to drive across town. Knowing that part was shot on DVX is huge added incentive to see a movie I was already looking forward to.

 

[Rasquachemedia]

Dustino,

yes it was filmed in 24p, from apple website:

"The “Murderball” team completed the puzzle with the help of Final Cut Pro HD, using a mix of 30fps tapes shot on the Sony PD 150 and 24fps tapes shot on the Panasonic DVX 100. “When we started filming two and a half years ago, the 24fps technology was not available,” says Richman. “But once we got the DVX 100, it would have been stupid to keep shooting at 30fps.”

link to page 1 (qoute is from page 2): http://www.eworld.com/pro/video/richman/

It just so happens that this film has just come to town and I just came back from theatre. This doc was awesome in everyway: cinematography, sound, and especially editing. This film will become a classic.

On the big screens some of the shots are pretty blurry especially the footage extracted from television. As for what they shot some of it is pretty sharp (I presume this is the dvx and the blurry footage I figure is from the Sony.

This doc is a must see. I wouldn't wait for DVD. Experience it on the big screen and appreciate the work. Yeah, I'm still going to buy the DVD and hope the bonus features are packed with great stuff.

As for the content of the film. It accomplishes a lot more than I expected. It really breaks down the stereotypes many of us have about quadraplegics. It is also very inspirational. If you have full able body and are in good health there sure as hell no excuses to what you can do.

 

[GraduateSwine]

Two i would have to recommend are: Sans Soleil by Chris Marker- I know its already been mentioned but it is true, this film will make you question the very boundries of documentary filmmaking.
Secondly, and im suprised that it hasnt been already mentioned (unles i missed it??) is D.E. Pennebaker's DONT LOOK BACK, the story of Bob Dylan's British tour in the late sixties. This film is seen as the original benchmark of the music doco.

 

[Rasquachemedia]

saw My Architect and is was less than okay. I wouldn't rec. it. I thought the sound was good, but that's it. Disappointed because I expected it to be so much more.

 

[Rasquachemedia]

just saw american movie (based on recs here) and it was a riot.

[ I'm a newbie to all this so i was kinda blown away with the shots in the editing room. I've never touched film. Have only worked with mini-dv and after seeing the labor involved with film I will never touch film. I like the idea of the p2 cards for the hvx (is that what they are called) but it looks like they are way beyond anything i can afford). Maybe one day I'll buy those drives that attach to the camera and capture as you tape ]

It was fun to watch someone else at work. I'm into video journalism and want to do documentaries, so it was awesome to see all the labor involved in producing fiction, whew that's some work!

 

[dancingcrane05]

more ideas for you

more ideas for you

Get Directing The Documentary By Michael Rabiger
Watch Mothers Of Life (by Some Finnish Couple I Cant Remember Their Name) It Is Epic 'observational'(?)

 

[Mike Parker]

You and I must have seen different versions of "Murderball".

I thought the cinematography, if you can call it that, bordered on dreadful. The shots were, for the most part, poorly framed, poorly lit and lacked coherent sequences. In a word: amateurish.

I've shot documentaries for History Channel, Travel Channel, Discovery Channel, HGTV and CNN, among others. If I had submitted the quality of cinematography exhibited in "Murderball" I'd probably never work again.

In addition, I teach news videography through classes and workshops. I am, as I write, in Athens, Greece retraining two-dozen news photographers at Antenna TV. The biggest part of my job is to get them to understand that news/docu shooting is NOT what they've been watching on MTV: just as in writing, there are certain rules that make their work more understandable to others. Reporters work with descriptive words and well-written sentences. We work with well lit and composed shots and logical, editable sequences to create continuity.

While content IS important, the way it is presented is ALSO important. "Murderball" was a terrific story and it would have been a BETTER film had it been shot by someone who actually knew what they were doing with a camera.

And, yes, I know they got a movie deal out of it, but so did the producers of "Jackass".

Mike Parker
www.mp-tv.com

 

[David G. Smith]

One doc that blew me away was "Crisis: Behind a Presidential Commitment" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0263238/) by Robert Drew. It is pure Verite'. "Don't look back" was very cool also.

I've noticed a lot of the newer crop of doc "hits", "Dogtown and Z-Boys", "Capturing the Friedmans" and even "Tarnation" make use of a large amount of old archival footage. These movies are hard to use as models for doc production unless you have access to large archive libraries.

 

[Rasquachemedia]

thnx for the suggestion on the film david, i just qued crisis on netflix

 

[rgdfilms]

CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS is amazing

 

[robmyers]

Secondly, and im suprised that it hasnt been already mentioned (unles i missed it??) is D.E. Pennebaker's DONT LOOK BACK, the story of Bob Dylan's British tour in the late sixties. This film is seen as the original benchmark of the music doco.

Dont Look Back. Watching this Doc again right now. I couldn't agree more. If you like music docs, this is the absolute benchmark. "Some Kind of Monster" is slow suburban slop compared to the no-rules, history-in-the-making, fire of this Dylan doc.

(Just so you know: I loves me my metal. I saw Metallica in the '80s with Danzig opening in a basketball court north of Belfast, N. Ireland - anyone know what "gobbing" is? Someone pulled the fire alarm twice. They kept trying to push us out of the venue until they realized it might be safer for the community if they just let the headbangers have their music.)

 

[Octaboy]

GOOD GOD? Has everyone gone so completely batty as to leave out the unrivaled, unmatched, some might even claim unbelievable, "MAN BITES DOG" as the quintessential doc of our time? It embraces every cliche from the gritty black and white verite camera work to the self reflection of the film maker pondering his own commitment to the truth. Yet, it is one of those non-fiction films that manages to maintain it's integrity and unwavering purity through out the test of time.

This film is not rated and is not intended for; children under 17, those with weak hearts or God fearing Americans with even a mild aversion to violence. Subtitled in French.

 

[Kelly Olsen]

Mad Hot Ballroom. I liked the story and that is all it really comes down to for me in the end. As long as the filmaker dosen't get in the way he/she can do anything, in any "style" with any camera. A perfect example is "My Date With Drew". It really changed the way I think about my work.

On "MDWD" they used a consumer grade min-dv camera bought at Circuit City with in camera mike and no lights. Claims to have made it for $1,100 (no post production cost included I'm certain) but the "story" was engaging as were the "cast members".

I love things to be well edited and look great and all the rest, but the story and the way you tell it is the key for me.