Comments on: When is a documentary not a documentary?

By: joel

joel — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:39:23 +0000

I haven’t seen all of those, Daniel, but I’d argue that the filmmakers behind Bigger Stronger Faster and The King of Kong have a distinct bent and intent to their docs. King of Kong was derided in some circles for taking a clear stance between one subject over the other, even characterizing them both in very distinct ways, even if that stance appeared to be pretty fair to the people involved.

I’d agree with you generally on Up the Yangtze, even though I think it displays sympathies towards certain subjects and not others (the Western tourists are all depicted in an unambiguous tone at the very least…even though it’s well-earned).

“I still contend that objectivity can be accomplished in documentaries.”

Generally, I agree. I think it’s a mute point to argue about this except in the more extreme cases, such as The Cove, which is directly funded by an advocacy group.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:06:19 +0000

I still contend that objectivity can be accomplished in documentaries. Some of the best I’ve seen in recent years have done so quite well: Surfwise, Blindsight, Heart of Stone, Up the Yangtze, Trouble the Water, Bigger Stronger Faster, even The King of Kong. In those, stories are told and agendas are sidelined. Of course the filmmakers shape the perspective by deciding what to include and what to edit, but in general these are fairly objective films.

Here’s one way to think about it – the fewer talking heads interviewed, the better and more objective the documentary will be. Stop asking “experts” and whomever will frame your viewpoint (Michael Moore, Alex Gibney, and yes, Psihoyos), and start asking the people who are involved in the stories. Period. That’s documentary filmmaking to me, evidenced by the examples I just gave.

By: joel

joel — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:01:25 +0000

The problem here seems to be “advocacy” docs versus more traditional docs, but most documentaries end up advocating a cause or POV. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of many docs that *don’t* advocate a cause or POV, because the filmmaking process is inherently bent to the will of the creator. All forms of art require a framing perspective from which to edit out the unnecessary in favor of the necessary. Even the best journalists are still saddled with the responsibility of telling a compelling story, which ultimately favors a particular point-of-view.

While I agree that advocacy docs in general are problematic because they tend to ignore or minimize opposing views, I still think that if they are well-made and thorough in their reportage they can be very informative and useful.

Where I try to draw the line is with advocacy docs that seem to ignore significant facts and evidence, presenting little more than a personal opinion while calling that fact, or simply push a political angle or social doctrine to the exclusive benefit of a specific organization or cause. Hence, I tend to keep Michael Moore at arm’s length these days because he eschews harsh details in favors of audience-pleasing showmanship.

However, it’s a gray line I’m straddling here. One man’s unbiased reporting is another man’s left-wing (or right-wing) conspiracy.