Your Favorite Documentary?

Mr Green (... no not the webmaster, a director) and mr Siegel with ''The Weather Underground'' the story of a splinter group of young people from the Students for a Democratic Society.
 
Used to be Titicut Follies, but now it's Do It For Johnny, which totally rocks and should be released soon.

I saw FH9/11 on a few lists. FWIW, I consider nothing Michael Moore has ever done to be a documentary. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with his POV, but an interview with one of the Maysles (don't remember which one) summed it up for me:

(Paraphrasing) Documentarians can't help but have an opinion, and their POV can't help but affect the situation and the final film. But a documentarian NEVER leads a film down a pre-ordained path to support an opinion that is already formed. That is not documentary, but propaganda, and that is what that (expletive) guy (M.M.) does.
 
Jim Brennan said:
(Paraphrasing) Documentarians can't help but have an opinion, and their POV can't help but affect the situation and the final film. But a documentarian NEVER leads a film down a pre-ordained path to support an opinion that is already formed. That is not documentary, but propaganda, and that is what that (expletive) guy (M.M.) does.
Click to expand...
Word.

What's "Do it for Johnny" about?
 
It was made by a filmmaker from Colorado about his team's quest to get a script into the hands of Johnny Depp, with side trips to find Robert Rodriguez, and Hunter Thompson's Funeral. The guys name is Haylar Garcia. I almost called him a friend, but that would be too presumptuous of me. Anyway, the film is on the festival circuit right now and courting distribution deals (as well as a possible development deal for the script in question). It was the most enjoyable doc I have ever seen. It doesn't have the weight of a lot of docs in terms of life and death/global impact kind of stuff. But it is honest, engaging, poignant and entertaining.

Oh, and it's stuff that really happened.

IMDB:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988084/

Official Site:

http://www.doitforjohnny.com/
 
Well, we discussed the Michael Moore documentaries in full aspect and it's films entered the biggest doc festival in the world: IDFA Amsterdam. It surely helps to see thru some facts that proves his points, but: We know that strong forces within the Bush administration and riffle association do have a widespread anti-propaganda against him. So...
 
It's not about politics, and it's not about his "points". He fabricates and misleads. Even if I agree with what he is trying to do, that doesn't make his films documentaries. The whole point of Roger and Me was that he couldn't get access to the guy. The only problem with that is that he DID interview him...but he chose not to include it. There are many examples of things like that in all of his works.

And the fact that he got into a doc film festival does not prove that he makes documentaries. He makes propaganda. I am not telling you whether you should like his work, just see it for what it is: Films that are carefully constructed to further a pre-existing opinion. Documentaries seek answers, they do not seek to validate opinions and portray them as facts.

His work is no more documentary than Triumph of the Will.
 
We discussed it with a group of Dutch and international filmmakers with an active audience, some in the audience acted like you do. There is always freedom to express yourself, but the outcome was that documentary is a dynamic style.

"Triumph des Willens" 1935 - Leni Riefenstahl- sure was propaganda. And yes it is shown on documentary festivals with the propaganda warning on it. M.M. films don't, but bring always some discussion. And politics do matter in this case. Hey this is the old world... :-)
 
Nanook of the North (1922) from Rober Flaherty is no documentary either, but you learn a lot of this film how to make documentaries, every doc maker is manipulating and bringing things in scéne. You are making choices and create youw own thruth. You choose the moment, the people, the frame the editing. Well, I dont think this is the place for me to discuss doc filming, lets bring up the favorites!
 
Last edited:
A documentarian does manipulate. But they do it to make the best doc they can, not to bring the viewer to a predetermined POV. And they certainly don't intentionally manipulate the facts by embellished recreations or intentional omissions to do it. Which is exactly what he does.

And it's not about "freedom of expression" either. A filmmaker is entitled to express their opinions and their feelings, but the documentary is not the forum for that. Documentary is journalism. Just as a good reporter brings to light all the relevant facts, so should a documentary, regardless of whether those facts support the filmmakers personal beliefs.
 
Jim Brennan said:
Documentary is journalism. Just as a good reporter brings to light all the relevant facts, so should a documentary, regardless of whether those facts support the filmmakers personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

Oh no, big no, documentary is not journalism. Absolutely not. I think there is consensus on that internationally on all boards, all filmschools, and discussion panels.

But like I said, start a new thread with the Q. what is documentary film?
 
Really? Says who?

http://journalism.berkeley.edu/program/documentary/

But to the point. From the MW website:

DOCUMENTARY
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>
- doc·u·men·tar·i·ly /-m&n-'ter-&-lE, -"men-/ adverb

Factual and objective (emphasis theirs).
 
Last edited:
A documentary is not journalism. Michael Moore does not really make traditional docs, I like to call what he does editorial documentary. He has a position, defined in advance, and he seeks supporting evidence for his position. He is pretty open about the fact that he purposely does not include anything that is counter to his position.

You have 3 choices when making a doc... you can tell A story, YOUR story or THE story. All are valid.

I get really fired up at people who think that docs should all be fair, balances, represent the "average" WHY??? I know a lot of christians who thought Jesus Camp made christians look bad. I am a christian and I didnt think that. The doc was about people who are radical, not people who are normal. How boring would a movie be that was about people who are average and normal?




ash =o)
 
There is a difference between only seeking facts that support your position, and manipulating facts to support them. In fact there is a HUGE difference.

What you are defining as "editorial documentary" is just another way of saying propaganda.
 
A Documentary is not Journalism?

Wow...this is all news to me. HA!! At least here in the States I know I could find a few Journalism professors that disagree with that. THAT'S A FACT!
 
My favorite documentaries are:

"The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On" - english translation of title, not sure what the Japanese title is

"Marjoe"

"Demon Lover Diary"
 
Although news needs to be accurate and brings facts, news is manipulated too, so is shown evidence to attack Iraq. You have left-wing and right-wing news that is presenting 'facts' in a way that opinion is mixed with it. News is making choices, not all the sides are shown, not all is news. Just by doing that, you are presenting 'a fact or a truth'. Not áll facts or thé truth.

I prefer to see a doc when I know the filmmaker has an opinion. That is more truthful to me then a doc that is presenting 'the truth'. To believe news or documentaries as 'the truth' without thinking or discussion, is being ready and open for manipulation.

Documentaries that are 'newsprogramms' are not funded here in Europe, they consider it not as documentary, they want documentary with a personal view. As stated: documentary is not journalism, you are more free to have an opinion, to make your point, to be personal, to have a premise in a documentary.


"Wie informiert das Fernsehen?" - Bernward Wember 1975-
(How do you get informed by television?) Germany documentary/ 134 minutes
 
Anyway you slice it, intentional misrepresentation of events, facts or people is NOT documentary.

I really can't make it any clearer than that, so I won't even try.
 
So, if you borrow a cutaway from another spot it is not a documentary? Everyone has an opinion on the issue for sure. I love the classic technique but in the modern age, it has less appeal.

I had the privilege of speaking and presenting at the "Film & History Conference" this year in front of hundreds of professors and with DA Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus. My first doc has been added to the curriculum of several universities including NYU and USC. I would not call it journalism and I am very open about the fact that my story, is very one sided. Most the professors at the event didnt challenge the fact, that while not journalism, I did indeed make a documentary. You can see a small part of the presentation here: http://www.h-net.org/~filmhis/conference_events/2006highlights/index.html

That is the film I wanted to make, a film from a certain perspective. Journalists generally set out to at least give the other side an opportunity to say "no comment" I think it is very narrow minded to say that all documentaries are or should be journalism.

Also, I think the viewer should be held more responsible. If you see something that stirs you, check it out yourself. I am in the middle on the Michael Moore issue, I have slammed him for things (claiming he is from Flint when he is from a rich suburb) but defended others (editing conversations, events, etc.) Simple fact, you wont find a lot of GREAT documentaries where everyone feels they were represented 100% accurately...





ash =o)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top