jfoobar

I may have supported your point (but I doubt it), but I certainly did not support your statement.

jfoobar

I don't care how much time you spend in "documentary theory." Your statement is pretty hard to swallow.

If I make a film about the mating habits of Arctic wolves, is this not a documentary? What arguments am I making, that wolves fornicate?

In the sense that no human being is capable of being entirely objective about anything, especially anything they feel some passion about, yes. That doesn't mean that objectivity should not always be the goal of a documentary filmmaker.

Moore engaged in numerous acts of absolute dishonesty in the creation of his entertaining little film. It is therefore simply a film, not a documentary as his objective was never to present the truth to his audience.

Krug

Oh please he made a documentary of what he saw as HIS truth. There's no doubt that he believed in the movie he made, and he succeeded.

AGuyNamedMike

Well, what I see as MY truth is that the once relatively brilliant Mr. Moore has seen better days, and that it is a sad testament to our twenty-first century "reality TV" watching population's intellect that BFC, incoherent and farcicly contrived as it is, has been so lauded. I agree with Moore's inferrence that we Americans are violent and aggressive, but I find his tactics insulting and embarrassing. Even he, in some of his more lucid moments, must be realizing how far he has fallen.

quashmonger

Anyone who believes that there is objective truth is really quite sad and deluded. BFC was a pretty good documentary overall -- but it had large plot holes and the like. The fact that it has won so many award, kudos, and accolades has little to do with politics and the like and everything to do with most individuals' lack of exposure to good documentaries. Might I suggest -- Crumb, American Movie, Genghis Blues, The Sweetest Sound, Salesman, etc.

movielib

Here's an illustration of what I believe is the difference between documentary filmmaking and fabrication:

A 1997 film, Waco: The Rules of Engagement was nominated for Best Documentary. It had a point of view: that the government mishandled the whole mess and was responsible for the deaths. It may have been wrong about some of the facts (its claim that Davidians were shot at trying to escape the fire is still a matter in dispute and there is evidence on both sides) but it was obviously responsibly made and and I know of no deliberate lies.

I saw another much shorter, much less professionally made film on TV about the same time W:TRoE came out. It was made by a very far right wing organization whose name I don't recall. There was one shot of a tank backing out of the building (I can't bring myself to say "compound") where for a few moments it appeared there were flame being shot out of a tank. The narrator said just that, that the tank was shooting flames into the building. It looked so clearly like fire, I wondered why nobody else had picked up on this footage. Later, on a TV show I saw the same footage only it continued a few more seconds. As the tank emerges you can see without a doubt that it is not fire but a bright reflection.

Waco: The Rules of Engagement is a documentary. The other film is like what Michael Moore does.

sherm42

When I went into BFC, I was expecting to see Moore argue for gun control and the elimination of guns. I was surprised to see him look at all the different aspects of why this country is so different from others with guns.

Pants

Excellent post

I love Waco: The Rules of Engagement it is a real documentary. Moore's film, well, you can call it a documentary, but it is really more of an editorial or essay film. Last month's Film Comment had a lengthy article where they argued BFC as being in a long history of "essay films".

tasha99

I agree. How can a director's voice and opinion not come through when he is the one who makes the cuts? I thought there were a couple of serious omissions in Paradise Lost, a documentary about the Robin Hood Hill Murders. Not enough to invalidate the movie--I definately think the boys convicted of the crimes were hosed and deserve a new trial; but the movies weren't as objective as they appeared at first, mostly because of what was not shown.

yecul

The two Waco film comparison isn't accurate. While his opponents have stated that Moore "tricks" the audience by showing certain events in a certain order that they didn't necessarily occur in (Heston's speech, for example), I don't believe anyone has said he lied. Or grossly misrepresented the truth.

As for Moore lying or whatever, that's just wrong. You can say it was irresponsible or inaccurate or whatever when he manipulates the timeline (if that is the beef), but you can't say he's lying.

movielib

You don't think misrepresenting and misleading are lying?

Could you bring yourself to say he's deceitful?

yecul

Nope, I don't think anything was that big of a deal. Nor do I think anything changed the message, tone, intent, interpretation, nor anything else in the film. As I said before, it's merely an attempt to tear down Moore himself rather than what he's putting forth. There are some very valid points to defeat what he says -- that Detroit and Vancuver have different population densities, for example. Why bother with this junk? It doesn't change the questions he raises, merely their presentation. And, in the end, those questions are what you should take from the film.

littlefuzzy

If someone took Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman." and removed the "not", that would edit the quote to the point of being a lie (not whether he didn't have sex, but whether he SAID he didn't have sex...)

Edit: Case in point, with the last post in the thread...
I completely misquoted this and took it out of context. Is my doing so a lie or misrepresentation?

AGuyNamedMike

snap!

Hiro11

BFC is a superbly made little piece of self-hating propoganda made by a rich, white American NRA member. It's tailor-made for the European left, sophomoric college students and hypocritical celebrities like Moore himself. It edits together leading questions, misleading juxtapositions and half-truths. It pretends to be "of the people" while simultaneously mocking blue-collar America. It stays ridiculously shallow in some areas and delves deeply in other in service of making its point. I really enjoyed it.

Any documentary is going to have an agenda, no documentary maker is going to be able to accurately depict all sides of any issue. If you believe that anything you see presented as a "documentary" is objective fact, you're deluding yourself. This goes for both documentaries you agree with and those you don't. It's up to the viewer to make up his/her mind if what is being shown is truth or absolute ********.

After watching BFC, I found myself looking up gun control on the internet, getting into spirited conversations on the topic. In short, I was using my brain. I learned a lot about the topic and solidified some opinions I had while modifying others. That's why I think this movie is successful, it gets people talking. That's always a good thing.

Pants

Moore's stock in trade. He ridicules most mercilessly that which he claims he sticks up for.

Hiro11, I agree w/ what you said up to a point. If you badmouth it as much as you do, then what does it say about you, or anyone else, when you say it affected so much change in your way of thinking? If you deride it so harshly, yet it drives you to examine yourself, then what good is it? I might admire that a work of art inspired you and expanded your world view, but not when you openly point out every flaw and short comming. If you admit the film is s**t but it inspired you, then it isn't a great film, your just a person inspired by s**t.

yecul

Yes, that was misrepresentation.

But, I don't see the relevance, because BfC did not do this. I saw all the evidence damning him, but it was mostly picking apart the editing and choice of clips (ie, timeframe). While you can certainly interpret that as lies if it suits you, I don't because it does nothing to his views, his point, his questions, the theories, the theme, or anything else. All it does is provide fodder for dismissing what he's saying on nothing more than the presentation. Which is sad because whether you agree/disagree with him, there were some very interesting things/topics in that film, and it sure got people talking. If only we could avoid this sort of discussion because it's really rather irrelevant.

Seriously, while it certainly had its implied view and you could obviously get a taste of what Moore thinks, there were no conclusions or "answers", merely questions.

grunter

Two observations:

(1) So for a film to be a "documentary," one has to agree wholeheartedly with the subject matter of the film? Since gun advocates can't seem to sit still through a screening of "Bowling for Columbine" without reflexively reaching for their sidearms and wanting to riddle the screen with bulletholes, then - of course - the film is one big lie.

(2) Gee. A political thread filled almost exclusively with n00bs. Imagine that.

Pants

Who you callin' a n00b?

BfC is an Essay Film. For the second time in this thread I will refer everyone to last months Film Comment (the one w/ Gangs of NY on the cover) where a writer spends several pages weighing the virtues of documentary and essay films, discusses BfC, and concludes that BfC is an essay film, their key arguement being that it is from a subjective POV of it's author who sculpts his images at the whim of his arguement, rather than being objective.

Now Film Comment isn't the be-all-end-all God of all movie opinion, but the writer isn't some uninformed hack either. I stand by their conclusions they are a good magizine (Entertainment Weekly it ain't). BfC is in a long line of Essay Films by Marker and Godard and others. Go read the article, then have the debate.

MrN

You know, it doesn't make an ounce of difference if people here decide to label BFC a documentary, an essay-film or paranoia-piece. The people who make films and documentaries have labeled it a documentary. And on top of that, its now a highly awarded documentary. Can we move along?

Pants

The reason for the debate MrN is that as a documentary it is most assuredly s**t, but as an essay film (a personal expression existing outside the bounds of proper representation of facts) it might be something.

TheAllPurposeNothing

From John Grierson, the man who coined the phrase "Documentary."

Defined it as "a creative treatment of reality."

In regards to the Dictionary.com definition, even dictionaries have publisher-based biases and can be misleading. The field of documentary film is much more expansive than the Dictionary.com definition would ever allow. Thousands of pages of theoretical dissertation regarding documentaries have still failed to come up with an acceptable blanket definition. How could less than 20 words in an on-line dictionary hope to? Within the field of established documentarians and documentary theorists, you would be laughed at if you tried to use that definition to make your argument that BFC is not a "documentary."

Mr. Pants - As for the Film Comment article, I haven't read it yet. But from your description, it sounds quite naive. Since the objective to be objective is lost the second the film/video shot is framed, many documentary filmmakers entirely eschew the concept to begin with. Any attempt to film "reality" or in an "objective" manner automatically becomes an "essay."

For a better overview of the field of documentary film, try Michael Renov's "Theorizing Documentary." A little on the wordy side but it gives a better view of the many competing definitions of "documentary" and sub-genres of documentary film-making.

Pants

Just...Pants

audrey

Believing that documentaries present an objective view of reality is as naïve as thinking that history records the truth--both are fundamentally impossible.

MrN

The act of observation changes affects the subject. So, unless you insist that all documentaries be shot in secret, then there is no 'true' documentary.

All this talk about genre is just nit picking.

Nobody blamed Lockheed directly for the Columbine incident - it was mentioned as an example of inherent violence all around us.

This is akin to saying The Godfather is a bad movie because of the phantom punch. All films (including documentaries) manipulate the audience. Its up to the intelligent viewer to take away the important points.