Documentary Movies...

[tgpo]

Are Enjoyable Depending On The Subject Matter

[lordsmurf]

Remember: a show is ONLY a documentary if there is no underlying bias.

[pyscrow]

Remember: a show is ONLY a documentary if there is no underlying bias.

Interesting thought, but I dont agree, most shows are biased, usually with a theme of save the seals, or save the environment, or pity the poor drug addict etc etc.

They all have some spin or other, it is only natural. Most News shows have similar (or in the case of Murdock, major) biases, it is called editorial control!

It is up to the viewer to sort the wheat from the chaff.

[DayFour]

They shouldn't be in the Theaters, they should be more acessible to the people

Like the discovery, history channel or even broadcast tv.

That my dumbass opinion

[johns0]

Remember: a show is ONLY a documentary if there is no underlying bias.

I guess that rules out any of Michael Moore's films.
A true documentary is enjoyable if well done and tastes good,belongs on tv or theatre.

[housepig]

Remember: a show is ONLY a documentary if there is no underlying bias.

okay, then I've never seen a "real" documentary.

as soon as you make a cut in the video, you've introduced bias - you have made a decision to cut something out / cut to something else - all of which has bias.

and in fact, that you choose to film something and neglect to film something else is biased in and of itself.

so unless the next documentary I see is "60 Minutes of One Continuous Shot On One Object or Event", bias rears its ugly head...

[lordsmurf]

Remember: a show is ONLY a documentary if there is no underlying bias.

Interesting thought, but I dont agree, most shows are biased, usually with a theme of save the seals, or save the environment, or pity the poor drug addict etc etc.

That's called "propaganda".
The authors thinly veiled it under the word "documentary" but those of us with more sense (which includes you since you see the bias) should know better.

A true documentary just looks at a case, and presents as much info as possible. I've seen many documentaries. None of them were bias, they just presented an issue to ponder.


@Housepig, that's taking it a bit too far. Editing is just editing. Editing to be bias is another thing entirely.

[Rookie64]

Documentaries started in the theater - they most certainly didn't start with Michael Moore :P


Documentaries can be on any topic (movies, music, sex, etc) and yea, I've seen a few in the theater before...but I'm not so sure I'd be that motivated to pay to see any more in the theater.


I'd rather rent the DVD instead 8)


I somewhat miss the theater experience, but the prices these days to go to the show and the selections given aren't really enough for me.
I can think of many other ways to enjoy a night out with friends...and I enjoy the home environment and setup I currently have...so I don't think I'd be going back anytime soon.

[tmw]

Remember: a show is ONLY a documentary if there is no underlying bias.

Interesting thought, but I dont agree, most shows are biased, usually with a theme of save the seals, or save the environment, or pity the poor drug addict etc etc.

A true documentary just looks at a case, and presents as much info as possible. I've seen many documentaries. None of them were bias, they just presented an issue to ponder.

@Housepig, that's taking it a bit too far. Editing is just editing. Editing to be bias is another thing entirely.

I believe there is real power in editing. Even Moore's "documentary" movie consists of mainly some standard footage, edited to paint a not-so-rosy picture. The same raw material could easily have led to a more conservative picture, by including or not including certain peices of information.

But, I'm just a newbie. I could be wrong.

[Marvingj]

Documentary should not have any underlining bias, but facts & evidence. Or a least a scientific guess.

[fritzi93]

Lordsmurf makes an intelligent and defensible distinction, but I'll admit, I'm more inclined to agree with Housepig.

BTW, I'm usually a sucker for the TGPO option, but you're gunna have to do better than that. Documentaries: Are enjoyable depending on the subject matter.

[tgpo]

BTW, I'm usually a sucker for the TGPO option, but you're gunna have to do better than that.

What's wrong with it?

[tekkieman]

I enjoy some documentaries (even the slightly...or heavily biased ones). But I don't really believe they belong in the theater. Many people won't go to the theater to see it, and them the MPAA will claim they're losing money because of people pirating it.

I'd rather see them on tv.

[triphop]

Remember: a show is ONLY a documentary if there is no underlying bias.

BULLSH*T - Many documentaries are no more than propaganda vehicles, witness Leni Reifenstahl work about Nazi Germany. There are those which hew closer to objectivity are generally termed Journalistic Documentaries.

As for Michael Moore - Bring it on - the more we get to hear about the morons in charge, the more likely they get thrown out on their ears.

edit: its Riefenstahl (pronounced: R-eye-f...)

[lordsmurf]

Remember: a show is ONLY a documentary if there is no underlying bias.

BULLSH*T - Many documentaries are no more than propaganda vehicles, witness Leni Reifenstahl work about Nazi Germany. There are those which hew closer to objectivity are generally termed Journalistic Documentaries.

As for Michael Moore - Bring it on - the more we get to hear about the morons in charge, the more likely they get thrown out on their ears.

edit: its Riefenstahl (pronounced: R-eye-f...)

I already said that:

That's called "propaganda".
The authors thinly veiled it under the word "documentary" but those of us with more sense (which includes you since you see the bias) should know better.

Propaganda is not a documentary.
Propaganda is some ******* venting and wanting you to agree.

A documentary gives you all the facts, and often even tells you about the different viewpoints of those that are interested in the matter (including the propaganda specilists). Real documentaries are on TLC, The History Channel, and many more cable/satellite channels 24/7.


What get's me though it this ... this is the killer ...

1. Some people actually believe Michael Moore made a documentary.
2. And then they think all newspapers are biased lies.

Some people really have their shit reversed.

[triphop]

Thats where you are wrong: A documentary can be a propaganda vehicle and ****STILL**** be a documentary. We are deluged by propaganda in the US - just listen to the radio and here the hateful crap that comes out, just listen to the cable "news" programs and feel the propaganda.

Now, Michael Moore comes out and makes a documentary that tells his story about the events of 9/11 and the Right Wing cries propaganda. Well, if you don't like propaganda - then shut up that idiot Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly and Coulter and all the rest of them.

No, the current motto today is: You are welcome to *MY* opinion.

[fritzi93]

BTW, I'm usually a sucker for the TGPO option, but you're gunna have to do better than that.

What's wrong with it?

What's wrong with it? Bringing up Moore again, see what you started? :P

[petar]

I agree with triphop. Documentary, in this sense, is no different than a movie or any instrument that is meant to be seen/heard/read by the public. You can turn it into a propaganda or not.

But as long as the story is true or at least the maker believed to be true, I'd call it a documentary. The makers interpretation of the truth (i.e. his/her conclusions and the way the material is presented) may be biased but that's normal. Any journalist or reporter writing an article will also have his/her own view on the subject which will no doubt influence the text, no matter how objective he/she may try to be. You are, of course, much more likely to notice this in a documentary about war/politics than one about nature/science.

BTW, I work in a small DVD rentals store and Bowling for Columbine is one of the most rented DVDs in the last year. In fact, if you calculate the number of rentals per copy, it has done better than any of the three LOTR movies. Never expected that from a documentary. Don't care if they are documentaries or not, if they are true or not, if people agree with Moore or not, I just hope he keeps on making films .

[housepig]

I think when Lordsmurf is saying documentaries are without bias, he is indicating that after a certain point, factual information or not, some cross the line between journalism (documentary) and editorial (propaganda / 'bias' ).

regardless of my devil's-advocate tweaking of his post, I agree - I thought F-9/11 was great, but it was an editorial, not a documentary. Moore was not trying to be even-handed, which I think is one of the hallmarks of what LS would claim as a "true" documentary.

so both sides are right - you're looking at the same things using different terminology. a movie can be a documentary (under the broad category of 'an account of facts, using testimonails or actual footage of events') and also be a documentary (an even-handed investigation of a subject) or propaganda (investigation of a subject containing overt bias).

[Rookie64]

I often rent documentaries on DVD

Sure they show documentaries all the time on TV, but they show feature movies and TV shows on TV all the time too - that doesn't stop people from paying to see them.

The difference is there aren't as many restrictions in the theater or on DVD - you don't have to fit the documentary into a time frame...it can be any length.
You can have swearing, nudity, violence, touch on topics that may be ojectionable on TV and have the wide screen ambience and be commercial free.

I've seen a number of outstanding documentaries that have never been shown on TV or topics not covered on TV.

I strongly feel there is definitely a marketplace for documentaries - people will pay to see good or interesting subjects.

As I said before, documentaries aren't limited to being about politics or controversy (that's just a tactic to make a huge profit on your film)

A documentary can cover any topic - and it takes a good filmmaker to make a good documentary...just the same as making a good feature.

[smearbrick1]

Bring them on...

I love a good "rantfest".

I don't think most documentaries are truly unbiased because people are not truy unbiased.

Everytime you see a documentary about Lemurs or something... I'm sure there is bias.

Here's an example:

A documentary about Nazi Germany told from the unbiased perspective.

You could not have a documentary about Nazi Germany and not mention the Holocaust could you? I'm sure this is one documentary no one could make without a least a little bit of bias toward the millions that were slaughtered at the hands of the Nazis. How would you film it unbiased? Do you show the senseless slaughter then try to sell the Nazi's justification of it all?

How about destruction of rain forests... sure it ruins the habitats of thousands of species of insects, birds, and other animals I can't name... but damn... what else are the poor loggers going to do for money?

[DVD_Ripper]

Are Enjoyable Depending On The Subject Matter

[lordsmurf]

I think when Lordsmurf is saying documentaries are without bias, he is indicating that after a certain point, factual information or not, some cross the line between journalism (documentary) and editorial (propaganda / 'bias' ).

regardless of my devil's-advocate tweaking of his post, I agree - I thought F-9/11 was great, but it was an editorial, not a documentary. Moore was not trying to be even-handed, which I think is one of the hallmarks of what LS would claim as a "true" documentary.

That's it.

[housepig]

I don't think most documentaries are truly unbiased because people are not truy unbiased.

Everytime you see a documentary about Lemurs or something... I'm sure there is bias.

of course there is bias - there's bias everywhere. at the base level, bias indicates personal preference and choice. you chose to bypass other messages to participate in this thread - that's bias.

but like anything, even replying to a thread, you can conduct yourself in an even-handed manner, and present a rounded point of view, or you can go to the other extreme and present a partisan, one sided argument with the deck stacked in your favor (leaving out anything that might mitigate your points, for example).

good documentaries will have low amounts of bias. good editorials will have high amounts of bias. propaganda will have extreme amounts of bias.

like lead in your bloodstream or mouse droppings in your peanut butter, there's acceptable levels and then risky ones...

[CaptainVideo]

Thats where you are wrong: A documentary can be a propaganda vehicle and ****STILL**** be a documentary. We are deluged by propaganda in the US - just listen to the radio and here the hateful crap that comes out, just listen to the cable "news" programs and feel the propaganda.

Now, Michael Moore comes out and makes a documentary that tells his story about the events of 9/11 and the Right Wing cries propaganda. Well, if you don't like propaganda - then shut up that idiot Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly and Coulter and all the rest of them.

No, the current motto today is: You are welcome to *MY* opinion.

Definition of documentary:
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Definition of documentaries:
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.

So I don't see how "propoganda" can still be a documentary.

As for Rush, Coulter and Hannity yes they spew "propoganda", but O'Reilly does not and he is not right wing. Just because he refuses to bash the President on issues you think he should be bashed for doesn't make him right wing.

[triphop]

Look its a documentary whether you or the GOP blowhards consider it not to be. It is a representation of factual events without the use of actors or staged scenes. Sure, it has a point of view, even an agenda, but that does not make it fiction or not a documentary.

Interesting definitions those... Unattributed definitions generally don't count for much - where do they come from? Your next door neighbor?

[CaptainVideo]

You see the key word you use is "Factual". Moore's work is not "Factual" thus it's not a documentary. It distorts facts.

Here, some enlightenment: From a LIBERAL

[lordsmurf]

OReilly spews so much from both ends that he needs to wear a bib and a diaper to keep himself clean. I'll never forget his "video games make kids violent" segment. What a dumbass!

Interesting definitions those... Unattributed definitions generally don't count for much - where do they come from? Your next door neighbor?

I really hate people that act like we're their personal research assistants ... but here you go anyway: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary



Just look at this guy. Every time I see him I think this (his voice in his head) "I'm a fat ass. My dick is small. I was beat up as a kid. I'm a huge honkin' dork. Nobody likes me. Women laugh at me. I'm was a virgin until 30. Nobody listens to me. I wanna grow up to be a movie star. Nobody likes my movie work. You bunch of meanies. It's all Bushes fault. Yeah, that's it. It's his fault I'm a fat ass, that my dick is small, and that I was beat up as a kid. He's a bad, bad man, and has just got to go." ... and I think the same of Rush Limbaugh (except he's a drug addict to).

[petar]

Why so much hate of Moore, lordsmurf? I may be wrong but my impression is that most europeans like Moore's work (at least his films do really good over here).

Now I may be getting into something I don't fully understand, but if Moore is really uncovering government lies with his films, I'd call him a US patriot far more than I'd call Bush. But then, maybe I don't see the whole picture.

[Baldrick]

if you want to continue discuss mooore do it over at www.politick.org.uk . too much politics.