Michael Moore & Documentaries?

[Linzyhop]

I just got into a disagreement of sorts about Michael Moore's so called Documentaries.

He actually said that MM makes documentaries. How can what MM makes actually be called documentaries? They are propaganda! how can people not see that? there's so much evidence out there showing that he shapes the facts he finds into whatever he wants to show the "truth" is.

i did a google search of simply "michael moore documentary" and got all these different links to how what he does are not documentaries. and found this gem too.

i am completely blown away by the fact this guy actually thinks this.

thoughts, opinions?

[Donkey®]

It's only propaganda to people who disagree with it.

Definition:

Documentary film is a broad category of visual expression that is based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality.


Seems to fit the bill to me.

[motivez]

I think it really depends on how you define documentary.. I doubt you'll find any where the filmmakers intended goals aren't shot into the film, and of course, Moore has probably taken more leeway with the truth than most, but I think most in the film industry still classify them that way

From Wikipedia:

Modern documentaries
One of 150 DV cameras used by Iraqis to film themselves and create the 2004 film Voices of Iraq.
One of 150 DV cameras used by Iraqis to film themselves and create the 2004 film Voices of Iraq.

Box office analysts have noted that this film genre has become increasingly successful in theatrical release with films such as Bowling for Columbine, Super Size Me, Fahrenheit 9/11, March of the Penguins and An Inconvenient Truth among the most prominent examples. Compared to dramatic narrative films, documentaries typically have far lower budgets which makes them attractive to film companies because even a limited theatrical release can be highly profitable. Fahrenheit 9/11 set a new record for documentary profits, earning over US$228 million in ticket sales and selling over 3 million DVDs.[4]

The nature of documentary films has changed in the past 20 years from the cinema verité tradition. Landmark films such as The Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris incorporated stylized re-enactments, and Michael Moore's Roger and Me placed far more interpretive control with the director. Indeed, the commercial success of these documentaries may derive from this narrative shift in the documentary form, leading some critics to question whether such films can truly be called documentaries; critics sometimes refer to these works as "mondo films" or "docu-ganda."[5] However, directorial manipulation of documentary subjects has been noted since the work of Flaherty, and may be endemic to the form.

The recent success of the documentary genre, and the advent of DVDs, has made documentaries financially viable even without a cinema release. Yet funding for documentary film production remains elusive, and within the past decade the largest exhibition opportunities have emerged from within the broadcast market, making filmmakers beholden to the tastes and influences of the broadcasters who have become their largest funding source.[6]

Modern documentaries have some overlap with television forms, with the development of "reality television" that occasionally verges on the documentary but more often veers to the fictional or staged. The making-of documentary shows how a movie or a computer game was produced. Usually made for promotional purposes, it is closer to an advertisement than a classic documentary.

Modern lightweight digital video cameras and computer-based editing have greatly aided documentary makers, as has the dramatic drop in equipment prices. The first film to take full advantage of this change was Martin Kunert and Eric Manes' Voices of Iraq, where 150 DV cameras were sent to Iraq during the war and passed out to Iraqis to record themselves.

[Phantom]

It's not PBS-worthy, but his films seem closer to doc than any other category.

[Linzyhop]

haha, docu-ganda... i like that term.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

It's only propaganda to people who disagree with it.

wrong. It's propaganda when the filmmaker has an agenda and lies in his movie.

Moore consistently leaves out facts that disagree with his message, re-arranges timelines and goes so far as to make it appear things happened in a different order so it's more damning, and just totally makes shit up and sandwiches it between real facts, I'm guessing with the intent of having people just accept it.

and yes, it fits the dictionary definition of documentary but that in no way means it's true.

[JaJae]

It depends on the definition used. The Academy Awards goes by this:
An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic, or other subjects." It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion, or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction."

They have decided after the fact that they mislabeled his films as they were fiction-filled and thus not documentaries.


The American Heritage Dictionary defines a documentary as:
"motion picture or a television program that dramatically shows or analyzes events, a social condition with no fictionalization or editorial comment."

Once again, this negates Moore's films.


And finally the American Heritage Dictionary definition for propaganda is:
"systematic, widespread dissemination or promotion of particular ideas or doctrines to further one's own cause or to damage an opposing one; often used despairingly to connote deception or distortion."

I think this much more closely fits the bill. Can a propaganda film also be a documentary? I guess it's possible, but probably not if it's filled with fiction.

[Linzyhop]

i feel better now.

[7960]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It depends on the definition used. The Academy Awards goes by this:
An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture ......

stop right there.

moore's films should be excluded from being called documentaries.

if I have facts A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, but in my film cut them and put them in order D, B, G, E, then C and use them in that order while leaving out A and F because they don't jive with what I want to say, it's no longer a work of non-fiction.

[Thorgrim]

it's quite clear, documentaries are supposed to have a theme and conclusion selected by the film maker that is NOT fact, it's not an encyclopedia entrance on film

[David Octavius]

I have not seen any of his documentaries nor am I planning too, I personally feel that the films are skewed too much to his beliefs.

That being said - "fact" are elusive concepts once you get away from the generally accepted ones (ex - defining objects such as books or places such as towns). When we look at complex things and try to boil it down to a simple set of conditions, certain truths are lost for simplicity purposes. That doesn't necessarily mean the "fact" is false if indeed - for example - our healthcare system sucks overall but that his documentary leaves out a few truths where individually it doesn't suck (its just an example, I am not defending him).

That's not including our unconsciouses human capacity to selectively take in things that already reinforce our believe and ignore or rationalize others that don't. Moore probably did that and some of his critics looking at his docs did it too, further removing it from the "facts" in their mind.

After all, this is how we have political ideologies and parties. No reasonable person thinks the conservative or liberal ideology is always right but if in the whole it is superior to the other or its better for the overall good the way they PRECIEVE it then they will align themselves to it.

[Linzyhop]

i was discussing this with my boyfriend and he said that if Fahrenheit 9/11 was in fact a documentary, why was it banned as such in the EU because too many factual inaccuracies were found in it.

[Rouger2]

So the Academy Awards says there should be a emphasis on fact. I guess that leaves room for fiction. That means to me that they is no use in watching the things how am I to know what is fiction and what is truth.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

So the Academy Awards says there should be a emphasis on fact. I guess that leaves room for fiction. That means to me that they is no use in watching the things how am I to know what is fiction and what is truth.

last sentence, what?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

last sentence, what?

That means to me that there is no use in watching the things. How am I to know what is fiction and what is truth?

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by 7960

That means to me that there is no use in watching the things. How am I to know what is fiction and what is truth?

oh okay. exactly why i havent watched them.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

So the Academy Awards says there should be a emphasis on fact. I guess that leaves room for fiction. That means to me that they is no use in watching the things how am I to know what is fiction and what is truth.

The Academy Awards later ruled that some of his documentaries relied too much of fiction to be considered a documentary, he almost had his awards taken away from him but they decided not to start that slippery slope. The academy award officials are extremely in favor of Moore's political motivations as well. So this really says something as to their classification.

[jff.law]

I don't think have a name for the things MM wrotte or film. Such bad quality and full of lies.