Posted on 06/02/2006 12:52:25 PM PDT by neverdem
LOS ANGELES - In "An Inconvenient Truth," now playing in theaters, former Vice President Al Gore asserts that global warming may soon eliminate one of the world's great natural vistas: the snows of Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro.
In the forthcoming film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" celebrities such as Mel Gibson and Ed Begley Jr. lament the "murder" of General Motor's EV1 electric car and the loss of California's "most radical smog-fighting mandate since the catalytic converter."
These two follow in the footsteps of other recent movies in the same nonfiction genre: last year's "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price," "Sir! No Sir!" (about the G.I. antiwar movement during Vietnam), "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room," and 2003's "Super Size Me" (about obesity and fast food).
All deliver on the promise to tell an "untold" story, but is theirs the full story? Or even the true story?
Don't count on it, say media experts. The days when "documentary" reliably meant "inform the audience" - rather than "influence the audience" - are no more. The makers of such films today see their cinematic contributions as an antidote to media consolidation that, they say, restricts topics and voices to the bland and the commercial. As such, they feel little or no obligation to heed documentary-film traditions like point-by-point rebuttal or formal reality checks.
"We need to clarify that this new wave of 'documentaries' are not, in fact, documentaries," says Christopher Ian Bennett of New School Media, a communications and public-relations firm in Vancouver. "They fail to meet the Oxford Dictionary definition, in that they editorialize, and opine far too much. They are entertaining.... But they can be dangerous if viewers take everything they are saying as the whole truth."
The films' benefit is that they foster public discussion, whether via outrage or applause, say Mr. Bennett and others. "These op-ed documentaries are catalysts for the great public debates - whether it's the war in Iraq, global warming, or the downfall of Enron," he says.
In America, documentaries grew up in the early days of TV, nurtured by journalistic doctrines of fairness - and federal licensing requirements concerning equal time, say TV historians.
The new, one-point-of-view documentary made its first commercially successful debut in 1989, when Michael Moore's "Roger & Me" explored the effects of General Motors Corp. on Flint, Mich. Since then, Mr. Moore has been turning out personal-viewpoint books and films that continue to produce accolades from liberals and clenched fists from conservatives. "Fahrenheit 9/11," about the Bush administration's march to war after the 9/11 attacks, is the largest-grossing documentary film of all time.
Moore's success, followed by the growth of independent theaters and the development of alternative means of film distribution such as the Internet and DVD, has led to a groundswell of similar films. Media observers generally welcome the new diversity of viewpoint, even as they urge viewers to beware.
Directors, for their part, are attracted by the opportunity to get their messages out without having to persuade the media gatekeepers - a handful of Hollywood studios, and cable and TV network brass - that their movies are worth doing.
"This is a revolution - that anyone can make a movie and spread the word about something they believe deeply in, and find an audience that cuts across politics," says Robert Greenwald, director of "Wal-Mart" and 2004's "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism." Before the December release of "Wal-Mart" - about the effects of company policies on employees and communities - Mr. Greenwald set up a website and hired an organizer to contact church, educational, and civic groups willing to sponsor the showing of his film in their homes, churches, and schools. By the time it opened, 150 such groups had arranged 7,500 screenings, reaching 750,000 viewers.
At his website, Bravenewtheaters.com, visitors can log on to host a screening, or find one. "We're a movement using film to change the world," say site directions. "Get involved by hosting a screening or attending one near you. And bring your friends!" Two future Greenwald films deal with soon-to-retire Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas ("The Big Guy: Tom DeLay's Stolen Congress") and the war in Iraq ("Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers").
Does he feel the need to present more than one side of an issue? "Is it my job to tell the story that everyone is already getting over and over 24/7? I don't think so," says Greenwald. "In a democratic system you want to hear something that hasn't been told."
Others concur. "There is no such thing as objectivity," says David Zeiger, director of "Sir! No Sir!" "The idea of presenting one point of view that absolutely has to give equal time to another point of view is spurious. If you make a film with both sides, you are going to make a boring film. The [film] medium is not the same as journalism."
One problem with such "docu-ganda," say some media experts, is that the films risk limiting their audiences to those who agree with their premises.
"One concern I have about such films is that they are merely preaching to the choir. You're not going to have a fellow with an NRA [National Rifle Association] bumper sticker walking into [Moore's] 'Bowling for Columbine,'" says Matt Felling of the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, which studies news and entertainment media. "[Former US Sen.] Pat Moynihan was famous for saying, 'Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts,' " says Mr. Felling.
A case in point is Don Richardson, who drove an hour to see a recent showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in Los Angeles. His own community is too conservative for any theater chain to show it, says the retired railroad worker. "None of my Republican neighbors want to see it."
All this demands a higher media literacy from filmgoers, say Felling and others. But the ability to discern what is fact, what is varnish, and what is debatable is largely untaught, and viewers are often complacent, they say.
The advent of such films does not mean that people shouldn't see them, but rather that viewers should practice critical thinking, say experts. "The danger of the advocacy documentary is that things might be being kept from you ...," says Peter Lehman of the Center for Film and Media Research at Arizona State University, Tempe. But he adds that it is legitmate for a filmmaker to acknowledge that his film is not neutral. "It's a different mission," he says.
I like the term 'Docuganda'. Suggested alternate: Propamentary.
"Varnish" - is that what they call it nowadays?
Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING
"We need to clarify that this new wave of 'documentaries' are not, in fact, documentaries," says Christopher Ian Bennett of New School Media, a communications and public-relations firm in Vancouver. "They fail to meet the Oxford Dictionary definition, in that they editorialize, and opine far too much. They are entertaining.... But they can be dangerous if viewers take everything they are saying as the whole truth."
Do you think these people would defend a "documentary" of the Democratic party that traced their support of slavery, racism, communism (and its killing of millions of innocents), and elitism?
Newsweek's April 1975 hysterical cry for action over "global cooling.":
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
False. Documentaries predate television. They were used to inform throughout WWII. Nanuk Of The North was considered a factual film while much of it was staged. And SEE-BS doesn't seem to have considered full disclosure in any efforts of reporting then or now.
The new, one-point-of-view documentary made its first commercially successful debut in 1989, when Michael Moore's "Roger & Me" explored the effects of General Motors Corp. on Flint, Mich. Since then, Mr. Moore has been turning out personal-viewpoint books and films that continue to produce accolades from liberals and clenched fists from conservatives. "Fahrenheit 9/11," about the Bush administration's march to war after the 9/11 attacks, is the largest-grossing documentary film of all time.
Thanks in part to marketing efforts by the terrorist group Hezbollah.
Beware the attack of the Michael Moore-ons!! Moore, Greenwald, and now Algore are just pathetic agitprop charlatans, posing under the "documentary" label to pretend they present some semblance of facts. They produce tendentious hot air screeds that make Maureen Dowd's look like a bastion of clarity and accuracy.
I have an idea.
How about we require all politicians drive the EV-1 turkey.
It was a lame test platform that was DOA and useless from teh start.
Moore's success, followed by the growth of independent theaters and the development of alternative means of film distribution such as the Internet and DVD, has led to a groundswell of similar films. Media observers generally welcome the new diversity of viewpoint, even as they urge viewers to beware.Directors, for their part, are attracted by the opportunity to get their messages out without having to persuade the media gatekeepers - a handful of Hollywood studios, and cable and TV network brass - that their movies are worth doing.
This is satire, right? Indie doesn't mean independent. It is a branding for Sony, Disney, Turner, etc. Indie is snob-Hollywood. "High brow" theaters that pitch themselves as being the modern "art cinemas" (that survived the 1950s-1960s by showing import skin films).
The new buzzword is to call your product "underground". I saw a number of "underground" titles at Fry's. If a major electronics store is stocking your title coast to coast, it isn't "underground". It is street level (even if overlooked).
There is no difference between the producers of these "docu-ganda" films and vacuum cleaner salesmen. They are both trying to sell you something by using a long, drawn out line of bovine scatology.
Does he feel the need to present more than one side of an issue? "Is it my job to tell the story that everyone is already getting over and over 24/7? I don't think so," says Greenwald. "
A convenient lie. He knows the other side of Tom DeLay's story has not been told "over and over" again. Interviewing the judge during the pre-trial hearings was a new low though in "show trials".
He's a propagandist. Nothing more. No journalistic integrity. No honor in defending his position as "rightous" and needing to be told "free of conflicting arguments".
Also, propaganda films abounded before the advent of the "fairness doctrine."
For example: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025913/
Ah yes, the EV-1. Based on a Saturn platform, it came at a $10,000 or so sticker premium over the gas engine Saturn. The batteries wore out at 100,000 miles, and would have to be replaced at a cost of $6,000 - $7,000. Maximum range on the EV-1 between charges was about 100 miles, maybe 70 if it was hot out and you needed to use the AC. Battery recharge time was 3 to 4 hours minimum.
With all that going for it, who wouldn't want one? So of course, it was a conspiracy between Big Oil and Karl Rove (thanks to the Wayback Machine) that killed the EV-1. Don't even try to claim that market forces had anything to do with it!
I wonder if Moore pays all his income taxes on those books sold in the bookshops so prominently all over europe.
The problem is that these "aware" films are introduced to classrooms as educational materials and stocked in public libraries with little or no counter-argument being shelved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.