You can’t believe anything you see on television these days — not even documentaries.
The genre has become increasing successful in recent years, largely due to the work of director Michael Moore, who has been credited with raising the profile of documentaries with films such as Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko.
But has Moore pushed the boundaries of documentary film making too far? Has he sacrificed the credibility of the genre for popularity and box-office success? Or, has he redefined the documentary? Are his films simply the latest evolution of the genre, in which the message is more important than the means?
Manufacturing Dissent, a documentary by Canadian filmmakers, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine examining Moore and his methods, poses all of these questions. The movie was released earlier this year and recently aired on Bravo.
Like most people, I was aware before seeing the film that Moore has been criticized for using questionable tactics when it comes to interviews and edits. And his political bias is obvious.
But Manufacturing Dissent, which follows Moore on his tour promoting 2004’s Fahrenheit 9/11, would suggest his manipulations in the editing room are far more deceptive than I had assumed.
There’s a part in the film, for example, in which the husband-and-wife directors examine a scene from Bowling for Columbine in which Moore walks into a Michigan bank, opens an account and leaves with a free hunting rifle. Melnyk and Caine, however, through interviews with the employees, reveal that the bank keeps its guns locked away offsite in a vault and that Moore actually spent a week setting up the scene.
The film also shows Melnyk repeatedly approaching Moore for an interview and being rejected. It’s much like Moore’s efforts in Roger and Me to speak with General Motors chairman Roger Smith.
But Manufacturing Dissent asserts that Moore actually did speak to Smith, but chose to withhold that footage.
The argument is that Moore in his films has demonstrated the point he set out make, despite his methods. The problem is that you can’t accept anything you see at face value. And that does the entire genre a disservice, calling into question the tactics of all documentary film makers, including those behind Manufacturing Dissent.
Gordo,
Especially in documentaries, you can’t trust the politically-motivated. The real fraud is Michael Moore trying to pass himself off as “the common man” while asking only loaded questions or setting up scenes to get the answers he wants to produce the anti-Bush or anti-American society story he wants
. . .
Hey Gordo, I look forward to reading your movie blog. What’s your favourite sports movie?
The Natural? Slapshot? The Mighty Ducks?
Congrats, Gordie, for finally putting fingertips to keyboard and slithering into the world of blogs.
Docudramas have their place, no matter how they’re con-figured. The producers risk losing their credibility, eventually, if they portray fibs vs reality.
Just like reporters, they have to pick and choose their facts, while maintaining the essence of the story.
No single movie or article can capture everything for everybody, but the true essence of the message must have a genuine foundation.
Moore appears to have skipped a few steps and is no longer true to his intended form . . . and it was appropriate for him to be revealed by his fellow documentarians.
Mr. Pagan, you can’t trust anyone who asks politically motivated questions, even newspaper reporters . . .
Geezer,
I know every newspaper reporter in town quite well, I’d trust them with anything. It’s the card-carrying political plants posing as journalists you have to be wary of . . .
Anyway, Gordo, another great sports movie is The Rookie, with Dennis Quaid. The real-life story of the high school gym teacher with the 95-mile-an-hour fastball who makes it to the major leagues. My fastball is about 30 miles an hour slower than that, so I’m working on this awesome new knuckle ball.
I don’t think this is anything new or unexpected – that documentary filmmakers have a point of view and express it both in what films they make and how they make them.
They are no different, though perhaps occasionally more political, than news media outlets. Who reads the The Star and would be surprised by its Liberal leanings, or The National Post and its Conservative leanings. And surely readers and viewers take those leanings into account when they imbibe in their particular media poison.
Why should documentary filmmakers be held to higher standards than the media?
Anyway, good idea for a blog. It will probably make more interesting reading than those other two.
It’s not Moore’s motives I’m concerned about — it’s his methods. I absolutely believe documentary flimmakers should be held to the same standards as the media. That’s why his methods are questionable. You can’t distiguish fact from fiction.
Even the most politically-motivated documentary should present the facts to support a particular particular in an honest and upfront manner. Moore’s films have a place, I suppose. But, I’m not sure they should be considered documentaries.
I don’t have a favorite sports movie, but here are few good ones: Hoosiers, Raging Bull, Chariots of Fire and Any Given Sunday.
Come on, I’m hooked. Gordy, please, I need another movie blog quick . . .
Can someone define media? Does everyone forget the days when at the end of a show the words PBS would show up. It read: “public broadcasting Service”, which meant that the public used to have a huge role in what was shown on television. Now adays it is all about hooking young teens to certain products, sex and the latest gossip on certain celebs. The governments regulates what we see throughout the day, or plays a huge role in what we see. Commercials are longer than the actual show! Does this make sense? Honestly have we forgotten about morals and values. It is all about buy buy buy and sell sell sell to make a profit. Half of the things on TV that companies are promoting is not even a need, it is a superficial product only put out so that the person putting it out can make money. And that when the consumer goes to purchase it they get taxed on thier purchase. Do I have it all wrong or is their any truth to my madness? Just another thought
Best sports flick says the chick: RUDY