|
Post by Gorf on Jun 29, 2004 18:46:37 GMT -5
Hey Mr. Websters Word of the Day Dude.
Documentary:
"Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film."
Objectively would be without personal bias.
Editorializing is expressing an opinion in a manner meant to be seen as being objective?
The film may well not insert anything but factual matters, however, even by Moore's own admission it is certainly biased against GWB.
Not that I mind that being the case, but that basically removes it from the category of being a documentary.
It can certainly be called an opinion / editorial work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2004 20:12:27 GMT -5
Websters schmebsters. Show me a documentary without a point of view and I'll show you a science experiment.
Roger Ebert just wrote about this:
A reader writes:
"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."
That's where you're wrong. 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.
The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.
The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.
In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.
Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.
Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."
The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.
Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.
I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jun 29, 2004 22:36:47 GMT -5
So Mr. Ebert agrees with you, that doesn't make the film a documentary.
You could find similar articles written by others in the public eye that disagree with you.
I don't say Moore's film isn't worthy of being seen, nor that I find it bad to be a one sided view of GWB's presidency.
I just don't agree that it is a documentary.
Are you surprised GWB's people haven't come up with something of their own to counter Moore's movie?
Is it because there isn't enough footage showing anything positive done by GWB to fill a full cinematic movie without having to make things up?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2004 23:30:41 GMT -5
And nowhere did I say you said it wasn't worth seeing.
Just so we're clear: I am specifically saying you are wrong in saying it isn't a documentary. Wrong, wrong, wrong!
It IS a documentary, Gorf. That's why they're talking about all the records it broke "for a documentary."
If you want to argue with (R)uffda! and Ebert, you go right ahead. You'll still be wrong.
Thumbs down, Gorf!
Documentaries have a point of view. There is nothing that says they have to be unbiased, Webster's notwithstanding. An unbiased documentary is all but impossible anyhow. Or pointless.
Now run along and find someone who agrees with you, like you threatened to do.
I can hardly wait.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2004 23:49:32 GMT -5
IMDB:
Documentary--A non-fiction narrative without actors. Typically a documentary is a journalistic record of an event, person, or place.
Academy Awards:
Rule Twelve Special Rules for The Documentary Awards
I. DEFINITION 1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.
More:
DOCUMENTARY: Factual footage arranged in such a way that it informs and expresses a point of view
Customarily an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view.
a non-fiction film which usually, although not always, has a particular point of view regarding its subject matter
(1) A nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events and using editing and sound to enhance the theme. (2) Still photographs having a theme or viewpoint but showing actual situations realistically.
Nyah. Nyah. Nyah.
(You got served, Gorf.)
|
|
|
Post by vierra on Jun 30, 2004 0:55:10 GMT -5
It's a documentary. I think (R)uffda is right on this point. Anyway, you say to-mah-to, I say to-may-to. To-mah-to. To-may-to. Let's call the whole thing off.
Roger Ebert is an idiot. He wrote the screenplay for "Valley of the Dolls 2" (not the original and crappy "Valley of the Dolls," mind you, but the sequel). If that wasn't bad enough, he gave a THUMBS UP! to "Speed 2," which proves that Ebert loves all movies ending in a "2" including his own regardless of what they register in the trash-o-meter.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jun 30, 2004 1:32:45 GMT -5
I didn't get served. I knew you'd bite on the comment(s).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2004 9:54:51 GMT -5
Oh, you got served all right. You got served, got refills, went to the salad bar 6 or 7 times, and received a huge honking bill.
Now who's going to clean up this mess?
Ebert an idiot? That's harsh.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jun 30, 2004 10:01:56 GMT -5
You're advlocating that Ebert clean up the mess?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2004 10:09:53 GMT -5
Not sure I've ever advlocated anything.
Whatever that means...
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jun 30, 2004 10:11:28 GMT -5
Ebert never asked me if I wanted fries with anything!
I was still munching on my breakfast muffin.
|
|
|
Post by benwhipdrofn on Jul 5, 2004 18:14:48 GMT -5
because of this thread, I went and looked up a bunch of info on the movie. I found that since the movie came out and since the 9/11 committee they have found a bunch of the information in the movie to be misleading and just plain wrong. Moore has said that the movie was made before the commisssion was finished and it's not like he can and he won't undo anything. He said it's a movie.....his movie.....let voters research themselves the men running for president and come to their own opinions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2004 19:55:46 GMT -5
The main thing in dispute are the Saudi flights after 9/11.
I don't think much of anything else has been refuted.
|
|
|
Post by vierra on Jul 5, 2004 20:03:59 GMT -5
Whether you like Moore's documentary or not should be separate and independent of who you vote for this November, though I suspect anti-Bush'ers tend to like the documentary more than pro-Bush'ers. Hmmmm....wonder why that is? I judge Moore's documentaries like I judge all cinematic works of nonfiction. Michael Moore happened to be one of the better known names out there in the documentary field, but don't kid yourself. There are many others who make much better documentaries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2004 21:28:52 GMT -5
Sure. But they aren't making documentaries about Moore's subject matter.
I suppose Frontline is.
I still want to see "Capturing the Friedmans"...
|
|