#1 Documentary of All Time!

[WildCat]

Here's how Merriam-Webster defines it:

documentary -
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence>
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>

Moore fails the popular definition of it by blatantly dodging the "factual, objective" part.

Now, this is more fitting:
propaganda -
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect


I'm guessing that there is no Oscar category for "propaganda", so it then magically becomes a "documentary" for Hollywood purposes.

 

[Earthborn]

Here's how Merriam-Webster defines it:

documentary -
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence>
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>

As you may have noticed that is the definition of the word documentary as an adjective. In the case of the work of Michael Moore, we should use the word as a noun.

If you choose the noun definition from Merriam Webster, you also get a link to Encyclopedia Britanica that gives a much more accurate definition of the word documentary:

motion picture that shapes and interprets factual material for purposes of education or entertainment.

Emphasis mine.

Michael Moore does nothing to his films that would make them anything else than a documentary. Even if it is propaganda, that does not make it less of a documentary.

 

[WildCat]

If you choose the noun definition from Merriam Webster, you also get a link to Encyclopedia Britanica that gives a much more accurate definition of the word documentary:

But Moore is an American, so Websters it is!

I'm not going to get hung up on the definitions, just saying that it's not what I normally think of as a documentary. Neither do those nature films where the animals are humanized, BTW.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Or so Michael Moore claims about "Farenheit 9/11".

But, according to USA today at least, of the top ten grossing documentaries of all time in the US (their "Life" section, 6/28), the only ones to earn more than $10 million are:

a). Fahrenheit 9/11
b). Moore's own "bowling for Columbine"
c). That IMAX smash hit, "Winged Migration", a favorite of ornithologists everywhere ($11 million and change).

I dunno. Apparently becoming the "top grossing documentary of all time" isn't all it's cracked up to be. What it really means is "grossed more than $11 mil, the take for a bottom-level Hollywood flop".

Once more, Moore is telling us significantly less than the whole truth in his rants.

No he hasn't. Apparently he claimed F 9/11 was #1. The stats you posted confirm that. How has he told "less than the whole truth"??

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Because in the end, there's really nothing wrong with the film [Moore] 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.

It'd be interesting (though impossible) to learn just how the very same people who bemoan and cry over Moore's alleged lies and exaggerations and selective editing felt about the extraordinary levels of ruthless falsehoods spread about Mr. Gore in the year or more leading up to the 2000 election.

 

[tedly]

Michael Moore does nothing to his films that would make them anything else than a documentary. Even if it is propaganda, that does not make it less of a documentary.

Thanks Earthborn, I notice that in Imdb "Triumph des Willens" is listed as a documentary. Michael Moore is at least funny.

 

[Earthborn]

[sarcasm]
Of course "Triumph des Willens" is a documentary. Leni Riefenstahl didn't use selective editing to make her subjects look bad. No speeches were deceptively mixed to change the meaning. Everything in the film is exactly as it happened.

Unlike Moore, Riefenstahl was a documentary filmmaker who kept the ethics of her work high. I give to anyone who can find a single factual error in Triumph des Willens 1.000.000.000.000 Reichsmark.[/sarcasm]

Shows the futility of trying to find those little errors in Michael Moore's work. Apperently people don't know how to attack his overall message: that George W. is a doofus and war's not nice.

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

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".

Ah! SCHEISS!!!!

I put my foot in it that time!
I was discussing the unusual idea of a jackal being a competitor with lions and suggested that the poster meant hyena... and I made the identical error myself. I meant leopard, but wrote jaguar.

So sorry, glad you caught it.

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

It'd be interesting (though impossible) to learn just how the very same people who bemoan and cry over Moore's alleged lies and exaggerations and selective editing felt about the extraordinary levels of ruthless falsehoods spread about Mr. Gore in the year or more leading up to the 2000 election.

Very good point! It bears repeating... or it would be nice if you got a reply. I'll emphasize that it isn't a true comparison. Michael Moore has made no factual errors in the film, while the commonly repeated lies about Gore were outright false. (i.e. he never claimed to 'invent' the internet, etc)

 

[peptoabysmal]

#1 - How can they say that? The "documentary" Spiderman 2 outdid the entire gross of F911 in one day.

 

[wjousts]

I see no one who so busy trying to knock F9/11 has answered the question as to why they care how much money it makes? Jealousy perhaps?

 

[Snide]

I see noone who so busy trying to knock F9/11 has answered the question as to why they care how much money it makes? Jealousy perhaps?

That's because Noone only cares about Mrs. Brown's lovely daughter, and a kind of hush. Something tells me he's into something good (he's Henry VIII, he is, he is).

[/Snide getting into character]

edited typo