jfoobar

So its up to the audience to just know that scenes presented as reality were inm fact staged, that quotes presented as reality were in fact spliced together fabrications?

How does the intelligent audience know this, MrN, if the filmmaker does not come clean about his/her dubious methods? Please note, I am asking on behalf of the intelligent viewer, not the psychic viewer.

You hear "filmmaker X employed numerous dishonest methods" and respond with "well, no documentary is completelty objective", as if the two are in any way synonomous.

How can a film that repeatedly and intentionally misrepresents fact be considered a documentary?

MrN

Audiences should have some skepticism when they watch any film. I may see pigs talk in Babe but I know its not real. Similarly, things are implied (usually through editing) in documentaries and news interviews that are not necessarily true. When scene A is followed by scene B, a chronology is implied, but is it in fact a direct lie? No, not unless there's an erroneus date given on screen.

The documentarian is allowed to give his/her point of view and imply judgements. To ask them not to do so is unrealistic. To expect them to be infalliable is absurd.

The intelligent viewer is expected to use his/her intelligence to process the facts and draw their conclusions. I can tell you what I think of the 'fabrications' and the 'dishonest methods' but my final judgement is with the picture in total.

It is a documentary because people (comprising a vast majority) consider it a documentary. Your personal definition may vary, but really, its time to let it go. This is not as bad as Moore not letting go of the Bush election, but its getting there.

jfoobar

So you are comparing a children's film featuring a talking pig with a socio-political documentary? That's rich. Pointless, but rich.

When it was clearly meant to imply a chronological relationship it is a direct lie. When a speech is chopped up into little bits and rearranged to say something entirely different than it originally did, it most certainly is a direct lie. When scenes are staged but presented as being actual occurrences, it most certainly is a direct lie.

Once again, you are taking defense behind this tired argument which has nary a thing to do with the criticisms levied against Moore for his methods. I have yet to see anyone in this thread criticizing Moore for not being infalliable or being free of subjectivity. He is being criticized for being unethical and dishonest. He is being criticized for intentionally misrepresenting fact.

By all means, do tell us. Are you in a position to dispute the information presented in the link in the first post, or are you of the opinion that it doesn't matter?

You are, of course, welcome to stop participating in this thread. For that matter, if the best defense of Moore you can come up with is a comparison to Babe, perhaps you should.

The vast majority that you speak of is almost certainly unaware o the procedural criticisms levied against BFC. That the vast majority is wrong is sort of the point of this thread, don't you think? It's happened before, or was I misinformed when I was taught that the earth isn't flat?

Shall we take a poll of filmgoers and ask them if they expect a documentary to be, more or less, nonfiction?

yecul

Your extreme rhetoric, while seemlingly making your point of view appear sympathetic, does not represent reality.

MrN

The problem here is that you expect all documentaries to be truthful all the time. I'm saying film, by nature, is about presenting ideas by sleight of hand. Why must the audience be naive and accept everything if a film is a documentary? There are countless propaganda pieces that are also labeled documentaries.

If its such a cut and dry case, then I wish the injured parties (including you as a member of the audience, if you've seen the film in question) would take Moore to court for libel. Since it has so many direct lies, it should be a short trial.

I take the figures presented in both the documentary and in the link in the first post with a grain of salt. What I do know is that America has a lot of gun violence, and its disproportional in a world context. Even the 'corrected' numbers point to this. But lets ignore the point and instead haggle over figures and sources.

Thats the second time you say I compared BFC to Babe, which I haven't. I said you should be skeptical, no matter what you're watching.

Are you implying that the Earth is flat? This really supports your point.

So your entire argument against BFC is that its not a documentary? And its not a documentary because you think all documentaries are truthful all the time? I say again, these are unrealistic expectations.

The governing bodies of film have labeled BFC a documentary - most of them even awarded the film as a good example of a documentary. Perhaps getting these people to change their label/award would go a long way in changing the public perception of BFC. Good luck.

Grimfarrow

It is utterly tactless for you to be making insulting insinuations to others, especially when they are trying to make a rational case without personal attacks.

If you cannot reason without contempt, then I think you should really go outside and take a breather. There are much more important things to do than to get hissy-fits over some random guys' comments on an internet message board.

Speaking of which, I will heed my own advice and not comment anymore.

yecul

There is no point in picking apart the 'analysis' of BfC linked at the beginning of this thread. The vast majority of it is his interpretation of events and explaining away things by making excuses. It's clear that, just as Moore has his opinions and biases, the author has his and it's incredibly transparent. I would think the intermittent snipes taken at Moore throughout shows the author's arrogance, bias, and anger.

He does exactly what he accuses Moore of doing, ironically. He's misrepresented and twisted the information making his own conclusions and presenting them as fact in his quest to damn Moore.

An example of this: Can't find a source for Moore's data? Well, clearly he invented them.

I don't have the time nor do I care enough to go through it all and break it down. Besides, would there even be a point? Would you buy anyone's viewpoint that differs from your own? Doubtful.