Favorite Documentaries?

[Pulsar_t]

[dsheinem]

How in the hell has this thread made it this far without Michael Moore films being mentioned?

Roger & Me (1989) - explores impact of GM plant closing in Moore's hometown of Flint, MI

Bowling for Columbine (2002) - explores connection between gun culture, politics, and media scapegoating/fearmongering

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) - highest grossing documentary of all time, explores profiteering around the War on Terror and critiques media complacency in covering lead up to military actions

Sicko (2007) - explores problems in the American healthcare system

Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) - explores the relationship between American capitalism and recent/past economic crises

Moore is certainly a documentary film maker with an agenda for his films, and he provokes a range of fanaticism and vitriol every time he releases a new one. His films at the very least provide the audience with something to think about and research (unless you mindlessly approach documentaries as "objective truth") and there are, to my mind, some very fair critiques across his oeuvre.

In any case, even if you don't care about his subjects or like his ideological bent, Moore is an extremely important documentary film maker in terms of his directorial style. I would guess that many of the directors who produced films named in this thread thus far would cite him as an inspiration for their own efforts and may have studied his films as part of their own training in how to shoot and plan a documentary...

[Luke]

Moore is certainly a documentary film maker with an agenda for his films, and he provokes a range of fanaticism and vitriol every time he releases a new one. \

That's why.

[Sano]

^Which one? A&E? Name?

Unfortunately I can't find exactly which one it is; being there are lots of things with Hiroshima in the name and as the name. I just remember it being a documentary. I believe I saw it on HBO (Maybe?).

It has a lot of footage from the aftermath of the bomb drop and interviews with survivors of course. They talk to the people of the Enola Gay (at least those where were still alive). I can't even remember what year I saw it, and I've watched it more than once.

Sorry man, wish I was more help.

[dsheinem]

Moore is certainly a documentary film maker with an agenda for his films, and he provokes a range of fanaticism and vitriol every time he releases a new one. \

That's why.

Just because Moore's films address public controversies and take an argumentative tone doesn't mean they aren't documentaries. Every documentary has an ideology and makes an argument, no matter how "carefully" the director tries to drape themselves in the aesthetics and language of "objectivity"...if anything, Moore should be heralded for making his own stance in each film abundantly transparent.

[BogusMeatFactory]

Moore is certainly a documentary film maker with an agenda for his films, and he provokes a range of fanaticism and vitriol every time he releases a new one. \

That's why.

Just because Moore's films address public controversies and take an argumentative tone doesn't mean they aren't documentaries. Every documentary has an ideology and makes an argument, no matter how "carefully" the director tries to drape themselves in the aesthetics and language of "objectivity"...if anything, Moore should be heralded for making his own stance in each film abundantly transparent.

I wouldn't say that every documentary tries to make an argument. You can look at films like Jiro Dreams of Sushi, the Up series (7up, 14up, 21up etc.) and many others aren't trying to make an argument, but are trying to give a look at a world that may be different than others. There are very sub-genres of a documentary and I feel that a lot of times, I am drawn more at the, "peering through the window," documentary of titles like Murderball, Man on Wire and their ilk.

With Michael Moore, I, at one time, felt that his films where controversial, but sometimes poignant. After Bowling for Columbine, I start to see that he is opportunistic and slanted to cater to a market of people. He isn't making films to point stuff out, he is making films to get attention. I have always felt that the spectacles he creates aren't to create awareness, but instead are to say, "look at me." This is why I don't enjoy his films. People can like them and that is fine, but I just do not enjoy his style of documentary.

[dsheinem]

Like any film, Jiro Dreams of Sushi uses all kinds of techniques to portray Jiro and his resturaunt in a particular way. Choices were made to create an image of Jiro that the film makers thought would make him and the film especially compelling, and there's absolutely a link between their aesthetic choices and the meanings one pulls away from the film.

All films are rhetoric.

[Luke]

I'll have to do a little digging, but moore has plants and staged events.

But even that aside, a documentary should question you to think. moore tells you what to think.

Matt and Trey pretty much nailed it when it comes to moore and film.

[Sano]

I like Michael Moore. You either hate him or love him.

[Luke]

He's brilliant, but his films are nothing but propaganda.