If they're not, then what is the word used for non-fiction films that are opinion pieces? I am pretty sure most of them are labelled "documentary" now, and I don't see a problem with that.
Certainly opinion pieces get slotted into the category of documentary. My objection is that you claim documentaries are
defined by being opinion pieces. This is false. Documentaries are defined by being non-fiction. Non-fiction = true or factual.
Documentary film makers are usually expected to inject their work with their opinion, to make films that give their interpretation of facts, even to cast moral judgement. Their choices of subject and of what they show and leave out all mean that documentary films present the views of the film makers rather than just cold facts.
I totally disagree. Documentary filmmakers certainly do this. It's unavoidable. But it's not something that is
expected of them, and indeed most documentary filmmakers go to great lengths to minimise these very things. Filmmakers that actively seek to do the above are pretty broadly criticised for doing so.
I've never said that an opinion piece needs to contain outright lies. They better not.
As I've said repeatedly, some believe Moore's films contain lies. I am one of them. I object to his lies, not his opinions.
If the audience expects documentaries to present facts in an unfiltered and unbiased way, then society has a huge problem, because no documentary holds up to such a standard.
Again, big difference between bias and deception. Bias is unavoidable. Deception is not. Bias is acceptable. Deception is not. I believe Michael Moore deceives his audiences.
And neither should they, documentary film makers should be free to tell the stories they want to tell, choose the angles of the stories they want and if they think their opinion has something to add, add their opinion.
Agreed. But they shouldn't deceive their audiences knowingly.
Some do, but often propaganda needs to be seen as authoritative and have the appearance the film makers know what they are talking about. A dry 'factual' style (not necessarily presenting actual facts) can help with that.
I disagree. You don't want propaganda to be authoritative. People are suspicious of authority. Emotional appeal is far better because most audience members are totally oblivious to it. There's a reason some of the most fundamental aspects of modern fictional filmmaking came from German and Russian propagandists. I would argue that the single most powerful propaganda tool is montage. Invented by Soviets (Sergei Eisenstein), montage is hugely powerful, and totally invisible. It's also very emotionally driven.
I'm not so sure. I can't listen to his snarly narration and escape from the impression that I am listening to the opinion of some leftist documaker from Flint, Michigan. He also doesn't appear to have a clear message that he wants to propagate. He doesn't attempt to argue that there is an obvious solution to the problems raised that we all must stand behind.
The best propaganda does that. Hence my point. Look at German propaganda. It didn't actually have a specific message, or cause, or problem. It simply offered up the audience a highly emotional and evocative presentation of German superiority and excellence. That's good propaganda. Propaganda that says "Jews are evil, let's kill them" is clumsy, obvious, and ineffective. But simply promoting a vague emotional sense of German might and superiority invokes popular support of the government, allowing them to do what they want.
In addition, while I appreciate that his propaganda doesn't necessarily work on you, I think it's undeniable that it
does work on a LOT of people. I can say with confidence (having watched both Olympia and Triumph of the Will, amongst others) that Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda doesn't work on me. Yet it's superb propaganda. Perhaps the best the world has ever seen. It certainly worked on a lot of Germans.
Only if the people trust the source.
No, it's the other way around. Authoritative and fact-based arguments only work with the people trust the source. This is why so much work is done to reassure an audience that the guy telling them fact X is trustworthy. All of the elements that do this: Subtitles with credentials, an authoritative, male narrator with a cultured English accent, a nicely lit front-on close up, perhaps cut aways of an engaged and interested interviewer, are emotional cues. People subconsciously respond to them, and so accept what is being said.
On contrast, with something that appeals emotionally, the validity comes from within the audience member, in the genuine emotions felt. By using directly emotional content, you skip the middle man. Instead of using emotion to promote trust in your authority figure so that their argument is accepted, you simply use emotion to present the argument itself. Invisible, and more effective.
I've seen all the sites that claim that he gets all sorts of facts wrong. Most of those claims can be fit in patterns: "Michael Moore says something I disagree with" and "Michael Moore omits to mention something I happen to find important". I would like to see a list of the things Moore actually got wrong. Not "unfairly represented", not "specifically selected to fit into the story he wants to tell", not "conveniently forgot about something that did not fit into the story", but just plain proveably wrong.
Surely there is something that doesn't require me to wade through pages of whining against Democrats and just shows very clearly what Mike said was untrue.
Well I've mentioned quite a few on this very thread.
One of the things I have noticed is that the average member of the public has a pretty mediocre grasp of film language; that is they understand it well enough, but they aren't consciously aware of it, and aren't capable of becoming consciously aware of it.
Filmmaking is a visual medium. When I say a filmmaker tells lies, this doesn't only mean there's an explicit statement in the narration or in a subtitle that is not true. This is an incredibly simplistic way of looking at it, and it totally fails to take into consideration the power of motion pictures, and the basic fact that it is not spoken or written language.
A prime example is the NRA/KKK accusation. In the written narration, Michael Moore does not explicitly state that one became the other. He implies it, by sarcastically stating that they are independent organisations. Frankly, having an appreciation of english language, I consider this itself a lie. If you sarcastically state "I love you", that's exactly the same as stating "I do not love you".
But more importantly, what is Moore saying visually? In this case, he explicitly states, visually, that the KKK turned into the NRA, and that they are one in the same. This is an example of an absolute outright lie in one of Michael Moore's films. Frankly, this is much
worse because as I said, most people are not consciously aware of the visual language. They will register being told something, but often even upon repeated reviews of the segment, they will be incapable of detecting what they have been directly told in visual language. Visual language, is thus, for most people, essentially subliminal. And I think lying subliminally is even worse than lying overtly.
-Gumboot
)
