|
documentary films are **arguments about** the world. they are not, and cannot be "objective"---but then nothing is "objective"---not even the national geographic-style docs that use long shots and stationary cameras to give the illusion of scientific detachment. that which purports to be "objective" is almost inevitably an argument the premises of which are buried.
given that documentaries are arguments, i dont undertstand the basis for conservative attacks on moore's work--if people think there are inaccuracies, then they are free to argue about them, but that if anything increases the value of his films because at least they put you in a position of having to think a bit.
if you find moore irritating--and i do, but more for his voice than for his politics--then so be it---but that again had nothing to do with his films as documentary.
i have long been puzzled by contemporary conservatism and its aversion to real argument. the ideology seems to prompt folk to not lay the premises of their positions out, to subject them to scrutiny. most of the attacks on moore's films seem to be border defense actions aimed at preventing precisely this kind of argument from occurring. for all the talk that circulates about democracy in conservative circles, you would think that debate--open debate in which people were willing to lay out the whole of their arguments--would be welcome. but insterad you get the reversion to smear, the attempt to discredit the sources of discomfort.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|