What do you think of michael moore, and his documentaries such as roger and me, bowling for columbine, and fairenhieght 911

I would add, "Funny/Entertaining but not exactly a true documentarian." I think it's sad when people take his word for the exact truth just because they hear "documentary."

I totally agree with you.

I wouldnt lump his older stuff in with his more recent political ventures. I used to watch his tv show all the time, thought he was a crusader for the people. But he's turned into more of a spectacle then a "Documentary filmaker". Of course maybe his previous movies bent the facts just as much, and i jsut never paid attention back then.

my vote would be "funny/entertaining & has some really good points/views - but he's not 100% honest"

i wouldnt think he has that many good views.

i think hes overly biased seeing how he trys to make you believe what he thinks is right.

a good documentary doesnt stress your point/view it tells what is really going on from every angle.

I would like to say that a documentary can never be "100% honest." Any documentarian will tell you it is impossible to obtain every perspective and point of view of that being documented because we subconsciously filter events, whether it's in film, writing, or any other type of documentary work. A documentarian's goal is to pursue actuality as best he/she can AND simultaneously incorporate his/her interpretations and opinions in order to guide the audience in a specific direction (otherwise, any piece of crap can be considered documentary work). So Michael Moore is a "true documentarian." He offers his interpretations and beliefs to guide his audience. Fahrenheit 911 is a documentary, and in my opinion Michael Moore does let his opinion skew the truth in most of the facts he presents in the film to correlate with his beliefs and to appeal to a mass audience. But those facts are facts, they are "actualities." Saying his work is "overly biased" is illogical because every documentary is "overly biased" because of the millions counter-arguments (or facts) the documentarian isn't conveying. And that is because it's impossible for any documentary to be 100% honest. There is no such thing as a "true documentarian."

I fall between the first two categories. Of course, they represent a biased POV, but still provide valuable insight and, yes, information. I believe other documetarians are able to approach similar topics more objectively, but Moore has been most effective in bringing his views to the masses, which I do feel is rather critical these days. I'll keep it at that.

theres such thing as a true documentarian, go watch one of errol morris's films, the thin blue line, the fog of war. errol doesnt voice his opinion he lets others who lived the expierience tell what happened and lets you figure out for yourself.

Errol Morris is a true documentarian, I never he or any other documentarian wasn't, but I think you confused the definition of "truthful documentarian" with "true documentarian." I mean to say "There is no such thing as a truthful documentarian" at the end of my post, I apologize for the mistake. But by "true documentarian" I mean an authentic documentarian by the definitions I gave to prove LiQuId wrong when he said Michael Moore is "not exactly a true documentarian." Michael Moore is as much a documentarian as Errol Morris. They just go about conveying objectivity differently. Moore and Morris both never convey complete objectivity in their documentaries. Morris excludes many other factors and events in The Fog of War therefore making it biased. But he must do so to direct the audience. Same with Michael Moore.

anything that is edited and cut is no longer truth. Documentary? I don't think it has all that much to do with the word "truth" at all, cause if it did no one would care about em cause theyd all suck

That, HDK, I can agree with.

What? Errol Morris is a true documentarian and MM isn't? Morris extensively used reenactments in thin blue line. Even using MM as the standard, that seems pretty fictional to me.

If MM did lie, or otherwise give false information, wouldn't he be spending his days in court rather than going to colleges getting people to register to vote? Don't get me wrong: I didn't really like his bush movie nearly as much as I liked his bowling film. But there's no doubt he is a true documentarian. ...as is Leni Riefenstahl who did commissioned documentaries (and propoganda films) for hitler ... as is Vittorio DeSica who directed a fictional film using real people in 1949 called "Bicycle Thief." Where do you guys get your definition of a "Documentary"?

joren's right

Ok, if Joren's post was responding to something I said, I would like say that I never said Errol Morris is a true documentarian and MM wasn't. Read an essay by Robert Coles called The Tradition: Fact and Fiction. It clearly defines what a documentary is. Thank you.

You can't excuse Moore by saying that documentaries are inherently misleading. Moore is intentionally dishonest. He purposefully (sp) suggests things that simply aren't true. That's why I don't like him.

I'll be honest, I probably wouldn't be so very angry with him if he used the same tactics, but I agreed with his message. But I like to think I'd have the integrity to stand up and say he's lying on a regular basis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trespasser:
I would like to say that a documentary can never be "100% honest." Any documentarian will tell you it is impossible to obtain every perspective and point of view of that being documented because we subconsciously filter events, whether it's in film, writing, or any other type of documentary work. A documentarian's goal is to pursue actuality as best he/she can AND simultaneously incorporate his/her interpretations and opinions in order to guide the audience in a specific direction (otherwise, any piece of crap can be considered documentary work). So Michael Moore is a "true documentarian." He offers his interpretations and beliefs to guide his audience. Fahrenheit 911 is a documentary, and in my opinion Michael Moore does let his opinion skew the truth in most of the facts he presents in the film to correlate with his beliefs and to appeal to a mass audience. But those facts are facts, they are "actualities." Saying his work is "overly biased" is illogical because every documentary is "overly biased" because of the millions counter-arguments (or facts) the documentarian isn't conveying. And that is because it's impossible for any documentary to be 100% honest. There is no such thing as a "true documentarian."

---

As HDK pointed out, there really is no true documentary. However, I must say that when you state MM presents facts and "actualities" that is a lie in itself. Not everything [if anything] he presents is truth, and that was the point I was trying to make in my original post [but unfortunately failed -= p]. Check out some of these sites that show how simple editing techniques can sway you to his view. My favorite is the NRA scene with Charlton Heston off of this site.
I haven't checked out this site yet, but it shows how MM lies in Fahrenheit 9/11 as well. Enjoy.

Not to brag, but it was actually me who initially stated that there was no such thing as a true documentary.
Michael Moore does present many facts in F9/11. But it's the way he interprets and uses editing techniques for those facts that decreases the level of truth in them. Example: The Pre-9/11 briefing. That is a fact, an actual document, and MM uses his "techniques" to try to guide his audience into believing what his underlying point is/was: The Bush administration had hard evidence of a potential terrorist attack and did not prevent it (this statement I made is proven by simple hindsight). I am aware that the way he distorts facts (by interpretation+techniques) like these to attack Mr. Bush as being lazy or whatnot are very questionable and some cases untruthful. I think it's the underlying theme, the underlying point (that the Bush administration has done such an irresponsible job) that people seem to negate because of many irrelavent interpretations and techniques Moore uses to make certain aspects of his documentary untruthful. I'm looking forward to seeing this "Fahrenhype 9/11" to see if they actually attack other things besides Moore's technique to guide the audience.

good point trespasser

quote:

---

Not to brag, but it was actually me who initially stated that there was no such thing as a true documentary.

---

sorry, i wouldn't havbe stolen ur glory had i actually read this intire thread, which i didn't, good thing i dont make documentaries .

p.s. nice to see someone with an avatar of Christopher Walken seeing as I got Dennis Hopper and I absolutely love their confrontaion in "True Romance"