#1 Documentary of All Time!

[Mr Manifesto]

I think Manifesto has fallen prey to disinformation peddled by biased documentarians.

This link says that jackals sometimes eat young gazelles, but it could be lying too.

I corrected myself, and I notice you haven't been able to refute my point.

 

[aerocontrols]

I corrected myself, and I notice you haven't been able to refute my point.

I thought I was agreeing with your point...

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I thought I was agreeing with your point...

Oops, my bad (again), I mistook your post for sarcasm. It's late (actually, early) in Aus.

Here's some info on lions:

Lions are not particularly efficient hunters, successfully capturing prey consisting of medium sized ungulates including zebras, wilderbeasts and antelope in only 20 to 30% of their attempts. They are referred to as "opportunistic" hunters, eating whatever they can catch for themselves or steal from other predators.

Now, documentaries usually portray them (or, at least they did until recently, I'm not sure about these days) as being master hunters, etc, etc. Clearly, these documentaries weren't being 'truthful'. Does that mean they aren't documentaries?

Leading back to the question, is Moore's movie a documentary? If not, why not?

 

[aerocontrols]

Leading back to the question, is Moore's movie a documentary? If not, why not?

You're still confusing me with someone who is claiming there must be some sort of very strict rules for something to call itself a documentary.

Meanwhile, I'm the guy that's willing to call Jacka** a documentary if it wants to claim that it is.

To answer your question directly, what Moore has filmed appears to meet my qualifications to be a documentary.

Of course, I've said multiple times that I am no expert.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

You're still confusing me with someone who is claiming there must be some sort of very strict rules for something to call itself a documentary.

Meanwhile, I'm the guy that's willing to call Jacka** a documentary if it wants to claim that it is.

To answer your question directly, what Moore has filmed appears to meet my qualifications to be a documentary.

Of course, I've said multiple times that I am no expert.

Actually, when it comes to documentary definitions, I'm really addressing C0rbin and others of his opinion (including dimwits like Corplinx).

Although I must say I don't consider Jackass to be a documentary. Mind you, I'd be hard-pressed to explain why it isn't a documentary...

 

[crimresearch]

I understand that lots and lots of folks thought Birth of a Nation was a fine film too...and it certainly smashed every record for films that came before it...


Is that now the standard for The One True Faith?

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

I think Manifesto has fallen pray to disinformation peddled by biased documentarians.

This link says that jackals sometimes eat young gazelles, but it could be lying too.

In the link they say that jackals mate for life. I've always wondered about the animals that 'mate for life'... do they remarry if their original partner is killed or taken away by people?

And is the answer generally the same for all of the animals that get classified as "mating for life" or does it vary between species?

Do any of these "lifelong-maters" find a reason to abandon their mate... like if he becomes abusive, becomes diseased, develops a disorder that affects his personality so he's diseased and disfigured and abusive? Or if they don't have young... will a jackal alpha female choose a new jackal alpha male for the benefit of the entire pack's survival, etc....



Sorry to get off-topic but everyone's been promoting Michael's movie so much... it can't hurt to take a break from promoting it and discussing something else, right? I mean, we all know it's the number one documentary of all time, blah, blah, blah... documentaries are all edited for the content of the film-makers's choosing, blah, blah... lots of personal attacks and selected criticisms because Michael doesn't let the right-wing walk all over him... blah, blah... it's not like this is a new thread on an exciting new topic, or that we haven't all heard all of this.... so tell me about jackals and mating for life.

 

[c0rbin]

You will find in any documentary that there is editing and manipulation of images to present the view of the film-maker.

True--and an excellent reason to question the truth-claiming of a film maker who has a strong agenda and a proven track-record of manipulating events.

I have never seen a documentary about lions that demonizes what they do. It's all on film and I can decide for myself if stealing food from those work-a-day hyennas is wrong.

But I can't make that descision if I don't have the facts presented to me as closely to the truth as the filmaker can produce.

As a documentarian, Moore is far from that mark.

To suggest that Moore shouldn't have done so is to hold him to a standard no other documentary maker is held to.

Moore's film are closer to propoganda than documentary (notice the second definition.

Moore's documentary is not about some objective truth that doesn't exist, it's about debate.

I wonder if we would be debating the issues he raises instead of the vehicle for their presentation if Moore had a little more integrity around his "documentation."

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

Actually, when it comes to documentary definitions, I'm really addressing others.

Although I must say I don't consider Jackass to be a documentary. Mind you, I'd be hard-pressed to explain why it isn't a documentary...

The key for me would be... observation.

Yep, that opens the whole argument for evaluating how fairly the filmmaker is observing... or with what kind of bias the filmmaker presents his observations. But that's the murky area I think we're in.

Jacka** is strictly scripted actions of the performers. At least, what little I know about the movie, leads me to say that. Whereas, F911 includes scripted comedy bits to communicate ideas and then uses unscripted footage collected from real-world events and even blurs both by adding elements from all around... scripted commentary over documentary footage and unscripted reactions to scripted performances. It's a mess... undignified and without scientific merit. But it speaks volumes in the truth behind how we feel as people to what's happening around us.

It's a difficult thing to pin down... but in the end, it's about showing us a side of the events around us that many people have never observed before. It's observations under conditions strictly controlled by Michael Moore, but observations none-the-less. And I don't think the same is true of Jacka** the movie... it's just entertainment without the content... no real observations except that we find it funny when people fall down.

 

[wjousts]

Hyenas, yeah, my bad.

On the subject of Hyennas, I don't really remember them ever being portrayed in a particularly positive light in any nature documentaries I've seen. They are usually portrayed as either nasty, crude and brutal hunters mobbing their pray and tearing them apart contrasted to a lions more elegant death grip or as stealing prey from lions, cheetahs etc.
Damn anti-hyenna media.

 

[Sane]

It's an op-ed piece.

AP Article

Jun 21, 8:43 AM (ET)

By The Associated Press

FLINT, Michigan (AP) - Michael Moore's new movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" has raised temperatures in Republican circles - and that's intentional.

"I would like to see Mr. Bush removed from the White House," the filmmaker told the host of ABC News'"This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

"It's an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration," Moore said Sunday. "I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."

Moore's film charges that the Bush administration acted ineptly before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, then played on the public's fear to gain support for the war against Iraq. The Bush administration denies the allegations.

Moore bristled at the notion he is being unpatriotic.

"Everything I do, and this film in particular, says that I love this country," he said. "Every day of my life, everything I do is about trying to make this a better country and trying to give voice to those people out there who don't have a voice."

The film opens nationwide Friday.

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

I wonder if we would be debating the issues he raises instead of the vehicle for their presentation if Moore had a little more integrity around his "documentation."

No need to doubt it... you haven't seen the film and you criticize it. So it is with this anti-Moore argument. It wouldn't matter if he were showing an hour and a half of C-Span with no commentary at all... if it's made my Michael Moore, we have to listen to this diatribe about how evil it is.

There'd be all the comments about how he edited when to start and when to stop filming the section of live debate from the Senate floor... so he's changed the meaning of the words on live television to twist it into something anti-American. Then there'd be the comments about how it was the biggest grossing documentary of all time and why that makes him evil... or why Jacka** is a documentary so that makes him evil.... and all of these things would still be happening if he had just produced an hour and a half film of C-Span unedited.

Because in the end, there's really nothing wrong with the film he made. The problem is that people who disagree with his point of view want to make up excuses to ban, dismiss, or belittle it... and with no merit to their arguments... they just go after the vehicle for the presentation of the issues he raises instead of the issues.

 

[Snide]

2 weeks.

Almost 2 weeks, not counting sneak premiers, as long as we're nitpicking. Which reminds me, are you going to answer my question?


edited embarrassing typo

 

[aerocontrols]

Almost 2 weeks, not counting sneak premiers, as long as we're nitpicking. Which reminds me, are you going to answer my question?

Sorry, missed it the first time.


After earning 20% more than Jacka** (which, upon reflection, is certain) I will consider Jacka**'s record to have been smashed to dust. F 9/11 will have utterly defeated all documentary competition and smashed previous records to dust.

 

[c0rbin]

No need to doubt it... you haven't seen the film and you criticize it.

I criticize Moore. If you can't understand my position from my posts, perhaps you should take a minute to reread them.. Go ahead, I will still be here.

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

My Opening statement.


No need to doubt it... you haven't seen the film and you criticize it.

Reply posted by c0rbin


I criticize Moore.

And the very next line of my same statement.



So it is with this anti-Moore argument...

Maybe you need to read the statements you cut in the middle of.




As I made clear with the complete statement, I spoke of a lack of knowledge about the material being related to the attack on Moore, which itself is the problem... since you were whining that you'd stop attacking Moore personally if he changed his tactics... and as I pointed out, you wouldn't. And here you are trying to argue that your concern isn't with the material because you are only making a personal attack against Moore and not the material. Nice circle.

 

[Snide]

Sorry, missed it the first time.

No prob.


After earning 20% more than Jacka** (which, upon reflection, is certain) I will consider Jacka**'s record to have been smashed to dust. F 9/11 will have utterly defeated all documentary competition and smashed previous records to dust.

Actually, I find that quite generous to Moore.

 

[Earthborn]

Moore's film are closer to propoganda than documentary (notice the second definition.

These definitions...

documentary adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

n. pl. 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.

... are correct, but rather limited. A documentary can be propaganda, a propaganda film does not change into something else than a documentary just because it is propaganda. Saying that it is propaganda and not a documentary makes no sense, as almost all propaganda films are documentaries.

Propaganda is usually presented as the truth however, and F911 is not presented as such. It is very clearly presented as an opinion piece. A documentary can also be an opinion piece. Although many documentaries are not, they always show only an interpretation of the truth, because showing the whole truth would make an awfully long film.

True--and an excellent reason to question the truth-claiming of a film maker who has a strong agenda and a proven track-record of manipulating events.

But he doesn't claim to present the truth, he claims to present his opinion.

I have never seen a documentary about lions that demonizes what they do. It's all on film and I can decide for myself if stealing food from those work-a-day hyennas is wrong.

I once saw a documentary called "The Dark Side of Dolphins". Usually dolphins are presented as friendly, intelligent and adorable creatures. This documentary did the opposite: it showed them as the aggressive and fierce predators that they also are. In fact, they have very similar lifestyle to sharks.
It really made me look differently at nature documentaries about sharks. Almost without fail, they are presented as aggressive and fierce predators. Even documentaries that try to give a more nuanced view, never fail to emphasize how afraid many people are of them and always interview some diver who learned to love them after he got bitten.

That's not showing the truth, that's bias. Many documentaries even demonize sharks, or tyrannosaurs, spiders or other scary creatures. A tarantula is never cuddly or fluffy, but always hairy.

Nature documentaries are never as fair as the work of Michael Moore, because Mike makes it very clear that he's presenting you only with his personal opinion and not the truth. Nature documentaries are much more like propaganda. Lions are never demonized because we are supposed to see them as nobel creatures. Hyena's and vultures are never presented in the same heroic ways.

I think what needs to be done is educating people about what documentaries are and what they are not. Perhaps someone can make a documentary about it?

 

[WildCat]

I would expect lions to steal from jaguars (who will try to drag their meals up into trees for this very reason), cheetahs and especially hyennas... with whom lions have fierce battles.

Now, if you saw a documentary that featured a lion attempting to steal prey from a jaguar before it could carry it up a tree, it must have been made by Moore!
Since:
1) Lions and jaguars live on different continents (jaguars in the Americas, lions in Africa and Asia).
2. Jaguars don't carry their prey up trees (leopards do).

I can see that Moore nature documentary now - a jaguar kills a kangaroo, only to have it stolen by a lion before he can climb a tree with it. The jaguar wanders off, but only to be killed by a Great White Shark as it crosses a river 1000 miles from the nearest ocean. A hippo then bites the shark in two in dramatic fashion. The title of the documentary? "Canadian Outdoors".

 

[aerocontrols]

Actually, I find that quite generous to Moore.

It was meant to be.