Quote:
Originally Posted by ernie
Yep. When the whole basis of the documentary was supposed to be about Michael Moore but then when he turns down interviews etc. the focus is changed to look at hw he puts together his films there is going to be bias.
Not saying there won't be truth to things, as there is truth to some of Moore's stuff, but I'm sure you could do the same thing a few years from now on this documentary and find similar things. Funny thing that I can never understand is why do people think documentary is the same as "presenting the facts without bias". It can be and perhaps we can argue that documentaries have gotten away from that pure form, but it doesn't have to be...atleast not in todays making of films. Documentaries whether on some animal or exposing some sort of fraud are put together in order to make the point the filmmaker intends to make. More often than not they have become opinion pieces.
|
If documentaries are fair and balance they are not as entertaining. When a a film maker picks one side and totally destroys the other, it's more interesting for people. People like seeing Micheal Moore getting kicked out of Charles Heston's house. They like seeing their view point get stronger. People who like Micheal Moore, like seeing him do what he does. People who don't like Micheal Moore will probably like this documentary. It is a shame that we don't see more fair and balanced documentaries that have the viewers pick a side, but those don't make any stir or money.