Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SirSeymour
I did not say anything about objectivity. Granted, the definition I quoted from Meriam Webster did. Maybe this one will work better for everyone:
From Wikipedia:
A broad category of cinematic expression, traditionally the only characteristic common to all documentary films is that they are meant to be factual. And that is just the first line. My point is that Moore used partial facts at times and completely ignored other facts when it suited his purpose. That is NOT in line with the idea of a documentary. I have no problem with doing a documentary to support your side of an argument but I do have an issue with crossing the line to propaganda.
Of course, the fact that my link uses Fahrenheit 9/11 as an example of a modern documentary opposes my view but I just can't see my way clear to equate the quoted line above with the work Moore did. He ment to be factual but only with facts he liked. To me, that is not documentary. |
Who says documentaries have to be fair?
Also from
Wikipedia:
Quote:
|
The propagandist tradition consisted of films made with the explicit purpose of persuading an audience of a point. One of the most notorious propaganda films is Leni Riefenstahl's film Triumph of the Will. Why We Fight was explicitly contracted as a propaganda newsreel series in response to this, covering different aspects of World War II, and had the daunting task of persuading the United States public to go to war.
|
Is Triumph of the Will fair? Does it present all the facts?
The very same wikipedia article names Farenheit 9/11 as a documentary. Here's what Ebert had to say about it:
Quote:
Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.
Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.
That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.
|
Note to everyone out there: if you're sick of rereading this same argument, imagine how sick I am of making it. I just want the word "documentary" depoliticised.