tmoney
Posts 183
|
4/2/2006 1:11 AM
posted awhile ago
Crossing the Line
So the question is when are documentary filmmakers crossing the line? I happen to think, and you may disagree with me, that Michael Moore is a classic example of a filmmaker who crosses the line. He intentionally manipulates his footage to tell a certain story. Now some call that his expression of "art", but I think he goes beyond that and tells a (false) story based on deception.
|
|
|
KatiesFlicks
Posts 21
|
4/2/2006 1:00 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Crossing the Line
Michael Moore does not go out of his way to show all sides of an issue,
but he is trying to convince people of what he is showing on the
screen. He can do as he pleases and people can take it for what
they want. He informs, misleads and even angers people. I
think people get all up in arms about the Michael Moore films because
of the nature of the material he covers, he brings up senesitive issues
during a time of distinct division in the US. I don't know that I
would call what he does a false story, but rather a one-sided story.
However, few things are truly as they seem, there is often grey
matter. It was his choice to put the information he wanted to
share, deceptive or not, and it is up to the moviegoer who views these
films to take what he shares as is, to realize that they are one-sided
or to even go so far as to look deeper into any issues he brings
up.
Perhaps there should be different categories for different
sorts of documentary films. Michael Moore could fit somewhere between a
mockumentary and a documentary. Farheinheit 9/11 could be
somewhere
between 'Best in Show' and 'Winged Migration'. Generally, I enjoy
his films. But those are just my thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
tmoney
Posts 183
|
4/2/2006 2:00 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Crossing the Line
good point. but if you study his scenes, he manipulates sequences of events to create a story that wasn't there. for example, when Charleton Heston says "From My Cold Dead Hands" after the columbine shootings, that clip was months before columbine, and Heston DID cancel his rally in Denver, as opposed to Moore's statement that he didn't. There are hundreds of other examples like this. But I agree. His films are essays on his points of view, and If people watch his films knowing that, then I am happy. He is a good filmmaker with good points. Its just that sometimes people watch his films as gospel truth.
|
|
|
KatiesFlicks
Posts 21
|
4/2/2006 9:03 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Crossing the Line
I agree, good point.
|
|
|
quint
Posts 94
|
4/4/2006 7:41 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Crossing the Line
People also sue Dan Brown for not telling the truth in his fiction. People are ruined for embellishing in their memoirs. Not that I'm defending Michael Moore, but sure what the hell, I'll defend him. He's a buffoon, a clown. That's his schtick. He stands up for the blue collar workers against the big wigs who oppress them. Business's don't care, their policy is to treat him like a terrorist. Ignore him and he'll go away. Weather the storm. Get back to business. Nobody would particularly care if he hadn't gotten off script and started after George Bush. Politicians trade on reputation. They play his game extremely well. George Bush was running for office. He had to defend himself in order to minimize the damage. Thus a systematic attack on Michael Moore has created this controversy around him. It's pretty much died down in my opinion. No one cares much about him, they're just readying their volleys for when he strikes next. Michael Moore is a bit of a con artist, I would agree. I think at the core, he's trying to be a smart ass. He can't pass up a good jab even if it's not true. He's like the muckraking journalists of the past who set the masses brewing for social change. Did you think the truth would change the world? More often a better lie works. What he recognizes is the value of symbol. I don't think of him as a documentarian, more like a political commentator. A gadfly. I'm glad for him. But I don't think he is after the truth. He's after controversy. That's different. It's like the movie about Enron or Wallmart. The documentary as political platform is a little frightening. I'd hate to have people confuse it for Cinema Verite. It seems like a whole subset of film that has a short shelf life. It is out to influence political opinion to initiate some very real, immediate change. I'm glad there is a place for such voices. I hear Michael Moore is working on a film about the healthcare industry. This past weekends Sopranos took some good jabs at it as well. Seems long over due to me. Perhaps what is important here is that some films try to answer a question. Some films try to ask one. Or at least argue for a viewpoint. That's still legal, right?
|
|
|
paul
Posts 251
|
4/24/2006 11:21 AM
posted awhile ago
Re: Crossing the Line
I'm down with Quint on the two natures in a film: asking a question or answering one. I'll go a step further and say I think every film can pretty muched be boiled down to one of two origins: a director set out to discover something or a director set out to say something.
Michael Moore definitely makes film say what he wants to say. So did Steven Soderbergh with Traffic and Brett Ratner with Rush Hour 2. The idea of "crossing the line" I think comes from this notion in documentary that you're not supposed to start a project that just bolsters what you want to believe. But that notion is really an illusion because in every film, every cut boils down to one person's subjective decision. Behind every film is a person and that person is having a dialogue with you as you watch their film. The rules of that dialogue are the same as any other: I have something I want you to hear and you have something you want to hear. If what I want to say and what you want to hear like eachother, then you'll go around and tell everybody what I say is the gospel truth.
I wonder if what really bothers people when somebody like Michael Moore fudges facts to spin his yarns, is the sheer number of people who want his stories to be true.
|
|
|
MsMaxwell
Posts 98
|
4/26/2006 12:36 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Crossing the Line
Perhaps another aspect of the deception issue surrounding Moore's documentaries is that many viewers are uneducated about the nature of editing process--just as some readers of Dan Brown don't really understand the nature of fiction.
And I agree with Paul about universal subjectivity in filmmaking. None of us--liberal, conservative, moderate, independent, whatever--can claim objectivity in any endeavor, artistic or not.
|
|
|
fnemecek
Posts 1
|
4/30/2006 5:19 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Crossing the Line
I want to add one other thing about Michael Moore and his films - one
of the things that I've seen quite often is that someone will see
something in "Farenheit 9/11" or another film and wonder, "Is this
really true?" More often than not, that person is in turn
motivated to search the internet or their local library for some
answers.
His work also provokes people to discuss the subject matter; sharing their views with people that they otherwise wouldn't.
In my opinion, it's the research and dialogue that his films provoke that make his work completely worthwhile.
|
|
|
paul
Posts 251
|
5/3/2006 10:31 AM
posted awhile ago
Re: Crossing the Line
Nice point, fnemecek. It makes me think of doc that's been hot on Spout lately, Cane Toads. I think that film isn't really about creating a dialogue to reach beyond the end credits, but a good chortle at some goofy Aussies and their goofy toads.
Which kind of begs the question, when we talk about "crossing the line" are we really talking about a doc created purely for a laugh (and a profit) with no intention of spurring dialogue between people?
|
|
|
paul
Posts 251
|
6/2/2006 2:00 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Crossing the Line
I revisited F for Fake again the other night. It's one of the most exciting films I've ever seen. The most jaw dropping part about it is how Orson Welles takes reel after reel of documentary footage and weaves it into this magician's illusion, leaving the audience constantly stuck on the question, "What is real, anyway?"
One of Welles' main themes: Those who think to know what's real, don't know. I think most documentaries fall into this category. No matter what style is employed, most documentary filmmakers are pretending to know what's real and what's false. I wonder if a genuine documentary is less about a style, or even about honesty, as much as it's judged by an approach. Approaching the making of the film with humility rather than arrogance.
|
|
|