IFC sez...

... that Michael Moore has offered to personally screen Fahrenheit 9/11 for George W. Bush. Somehow, I don't think it'll be shown.
9:05:45 PM    comment []  trackback []

Why Michael Moore is the best thing for Documentaries in 50 years...

This week has been rife with criticism for Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11. Most of it is, of course, from people who haven't seen the film, but are angry that it could possibly be made. They've been writing letters to theatres urging for the film not to be screened, they've been organizing protests against the movie. Talk has been all over news networks, talking heads debating points about a movie that most of them haven't seen. This is all incredibly similar to the recent media blitz for the incredibly successful "Passion of the Christ". "Passion" was a surprising hit in theatres, bringing about incredible amounts of money - "Fahrenheit" is not going to surprise anyone. The film has the potential to have the number one gross for a documentary (Current record ~$21M for Bowling for Columbine) in its opening weekend.

The current talking point against the film is the accusation that Michael Moore doesn't make documentaries. That due to his bias, is inclusion of himself in his films and his use of editing, that somehow Moore's films have transcended the documentary realm and into some own genre of it's own (normally your films being in a genre in and to theirselves is a compliment, but in these cases it's used to deride Moore) This attack is generally used by people who aren't familiar with the term, and think that dictionary.com can provide a be-all/end-all definition to what the genre encompasses. "Moore's movies are liberal propaganda - they aren't documentaries" - they often compare Moore's films to Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" (oddly enough, never the "Why we Fight" series - the American equivalent). While, the Nazi comparison is the current "cheap shot du joir" in the current debate scheme (nearly anything can be compared to the Nazis, and it rarely is valid or gets anywhere) it doesn't advance their argument - "Triumph" is recognized by every film source I can find as a documentary, and an important one.

The second talking point against Moore is a critique of his use of editing. That Moore has used heavily editing to what people say, taken them out of context and manipulated what they say. Some say these are lies by Moore; others simply refer to it as deception (While similar they are different). You can nitpick Moore's work and find areas that can be interpreted this way - the blind man example I like to use or the fact that Moore recreated the famous "Dog with a Rifle" footage. These nitpickings hold Moore to a standard that few documentaries are ever held - only recently has it been en vogue to critique a documentary as "not a documentary" because the filmmaker messed up a fact that was minor or inconsequential to the central goals or theme to the film. Looking back at documentary history we can find several examples to where documentary filmmakers have used editing to change the world. The first film that we contemporarily recognize as a documentary - "The Man with the Movie Camera" was made to experiment with the filmmaker's control over reality through the use of editing. Lies on the other hand, lies are more acceptable than just the nitpicks that Moore is called on so often - White Wilderness, a Disney film single handedly created the myth of ritual Lemming suicide. Nanook of the North - a documentary on the life of the Eskimos had actors playing Nanook's wife, some of it is completely fake. Both these films are considered to be documentaries. To go further, famed director Werner Herzog would completely make up lines for his interviewees to say. His films - still documentaries.

So, I've made the argument that Moore's films are documentaries in the sense of documentary that we have (it's sort of like the contemporary definition of an independent film - there isn't a good one as we're still trying to define ourselves) so, now to come onto why he's so good for us. Documentaries have always been seen as boring. To a degree, they are, my own included. I recall an episode of some cartoon show (I think it's Eek the Cat, but I'm not sure) where two kids are watching TV. Their program ends and what should come on, but a doc. The kids begin to freak out, "OH NO! NOT ANOTHER BORING DOCUMENTARY!" they freak for a while then go outside. Anything to avoid the documentary. This was generally how people perceived documentaries in public for a long time. It's still how younger people perceive them, due to the docs they watch at school against their will. This is what docs were thought of. Documentary received a small boom around 1988 with Errol Morris' "Thin Blue Line" - where Morris proved that a man on death row didn't commit the crime - the film lead to the exoneration of them an in question. This gave docs a brief spotlight. Flash forward to 2002 - Bowling For Columbine is released. Moore brings questions of cultures of violence, media behavior and our obsession with guns. The NRA and other gun-loving organizations freak and denounce the film, many organizations embrace the film, and some decry the film full of lies. These controversies lead Bowling to be the top grossing documentary in the world, making roughly five times it's investment in the US and ten times it's investment worldwide the film got a lot of attention.

So, it was a successful film financially, so what? Before Bowling for Columbine documentaries were considered wastes of money to producers. People didn't go to see documentaries. If your doc made four million dollars it was in the top ten grossing documentaries of all time. Bowling hits and rockets up the charts, making a profit ratio rarely seen before. Producers take notice. They find they can make a minimal investment and get return. SuperSize Me is currently the third highest grossing doc, and is still in theatres. Currently 5 of the Top 25 grossing documentaries are in theatres. Documentary is having the biggest boom that it's ever had - because producers, who would've never given documentary filmmakers money, are now giving them the investments they need. Not just the large scale producers, either. Today there are an incredible number of grants and soruces of money available to documentary filmmakers (particularly if they don't want to choose their own subjects). Private organizations are now givng money away to filmmakers, trying to get their own docs. Having a documentary is now an asset to an organization, they can now give their concerns and show why they do what they do. There are more opportunities for doc-makers. Festivals are more receptive to them, some festivals have sprung up that are now doc-only. The film community now fully embraces documentary film, instead of seeing them as an offshoot for those who were wanting something completely different. Now they're seeing how similiar they truly are.

On the other side, Michael Moore makes a very approachable documentary. A person walking down the street by a theatre could've gone into the movie and had it appeal to them more than say "Capturing the Friedman's" or "Hitler's Secretary". Moore showed people that they could go to a documentary and have a good time. Whether you agree with Moore's politics or not, Bowling was funny enough and thought-provoking enough to keep people interested, if even to decide that they don't agree with what Moore says. People who ordinarily wouldn't go see a documentary went to see Bowling,. A good question to ask people is to name a documentary they saw in theatres before Bowling - not many will be able to say they had seen one. After Bowling, people have seen a lot more documentaries, making a lot of money for everybody involved. Because of Bowling, people became interested in the world of documentaries, Capturing the Friedman's would've never had the audience that it did, had Bowling not been released. You can argue the same with SuperSize Me (even thought SSM is very approachable and likable, right off the street). Documentaries are incredibly hot right now, people are anticipating them, people are going to the theatres to see them, where it used to be that people would never see one in theatres and would rent one or see one on the discovery channel if they were to watch one at all. Now people are interested. Very interested. Documentaries are telling people the true stories that are just as compelling or even more compelling than the stories that narrative films tell.

Moore brought a spotlight to documentary, Moore brought us producers, and Moore brought us an audience. We're having the biggest boom we've ever had now. Hopefully we can keep people interested and coming. People are willing to open their mind and see what we have to say - let's give them something to think about.
9:05:00 PM    comment []  trackback []