|
All documentaries should be taken with hardly more than a grain of salt when analyzing the "truths" that they display. And it's not because the actions in documentaries didn't necessarily happen the way they did, it's because these films sometimes do not show the full context of the situation. The most powerful tool that a documentary possesses is editing. Without the use of editing, the filmmaker has a more difficult time convincing the audience of his or her own personal beliefs or agenda. Bowling for Columbine is no different in that respect. While I enjoyed the movie, I know that Moore has his own agenda, and is best to do more outside research to really get an unbiased opinion on the happenings of the film. This film, nevertheless, was an eye opener, but the person watching the film should always continue to be skeptical. If we don't scrutinize documentaries, all the films are is purely entertainment, which the filmmaker generally wishes for to reach a larger, more emotionally charged audience.
Even the classic movie Nuit et brouillard (Night and Fog, 1955), while being a fantastic film about what truly happened during the Holocaust, is guilty of editing to prove one or more points. I love the movie, but a truly accurate documentary would be one where the filmmaker left the camera rolling and never edited it. This is really rare, and I probably wouldn't even enjoy it, although it would be more true to reality.
|