Less is Moore
The one thing that pisses me off about Farenheight 911 is its classification. Documentary, you gotta be kidding me. Look at the following definition of documentary courtesy of Dictionary.com Pay particular attention to the highlighted portion.
doc·u·men·ta·ry
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
doc·u·men·ta·ries
n. pl.
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
I don't care what side of the fence your on, there are a few things that cannot be disputed. For the record, I have not seen the film. I'm going by what I've read and heard, mostly CNN commentary, and friends / co-workers.
Moore's film seems to be a quasi-documentary, combining elements of documentary, and personal film making. He presents things in factual, and informative manner, but editorializes at the same time. For me, as a wanna-be documentary filmmaker, that's a big no no. True documentaries cannot be skewed, in any way shape or form. The word "documentary" carries a weight to it on it's self. It must be presented in a manner showing all sides and blemishes. One must not be skewed during the production process of what to include/exclude. To be a true documentary you must remove one's own point of view as much as possible. The facts are what determine the outcome of your film. It's my understanding the Moore does enough in his film to throw that equation off. Documentaries are based on the totality of facts. Not some facts, not your favorite facts, the totality of facts. While Moore's film may be very good, and strike up conversations, in my view it is no documentary.
1 Comments:
While I agree with you on the definition, I'd argue that few documentaries are truly subjective, even when they lack an overt agenda like Moore's film. The very decision to "document" something is an editorial decision, and every shot you choose, person you interview, edit you make, is driven my your interpretation of the subject. Not unlike journalism, so little of which these days is objective, the reporter/documentarian cannot coldly separate themselves from their subject. Even something as simple as a nature documentary usually have an agenda, whether its to profile an endangered species or to justify drilling for oil.
That said, you should really see Fahrenheit 9/11 because Moore's editorializing aside, there is more than enough "factual and informative" material that only the most fanatical could dismiss the message because of the messenger.
Post a Comment
<< Home