  |
|||
|
|
|
||
|
Posted by Mary Rayme Oct 1, 2006 |
The documentary film is an attempt to record or document real events. There is a modern myth that the documentary filmmaker is part scientist, whose role is to observe the subject matter, and not attempt to direct or interact with the subject. But this is not so. I think that the very act of choosing to document anything is nonbiased.
Even the classic, Nanook of the North (1922), directed by Robert J. Flaherty, was a masterpiece of manipulation of facts. The woman in the film who appears to be Nanook's wife is not his real wife, and Nanook is encouraged to hunt traditionally with a club rather than with the rifle he usually used. And Nanook's real name was Allakariallak!
There is no such thing as a purely nonfiction or unstaged documentary. Even the act of editing is an act of fiction; it involves cutting and pasting angles that can't exist simultaneously, and the condensing of time into a contorted two hours. If you give two directors the same set of footage, they would create two very different movies from very different viewpoints.
It is the excuse that many use to belittle the documentary work of Michael Moore. His first film, Roger & Me (1989), was a new kind of documentary that had a definite viewpoint that was critical of the subject. Moore is angry, and takes personally the devastation of his hometown of Flint, Michigan by General Motors, who abandoned the US for cheap labor in Mexico.
Moore's style is confrontational and humorous, and is part gonzo-journalism and part kabuki theater. There is a difficult scene in Bowling for Columbine where Moore leaves a photo of a girl killed by a gun for a disoriented Charlton Heston. This scene is meant to confront Heston for being a representative of the NRA, and comes across as cheap to an unsuspecting Heston.
This kind of journalistic ambush is Michael Moore's bread and butter. It is akin to the Mike Wallace 60 Minutes interview where he pulls out damning information that brings his interviewee to a stammering state of denial. When Mike Wallace delivers his sucker punch he is well-dressed and well-lit. When Michael Moore delivers his punch, it is poorly lit and he is dressed like a schlub. I think many people who have issues with Michael Moore's films have more of a hangup with his appearance than his message.