Ugh... this thread is like a persistent weed. Sorry TGP, I'm just tired of hearing about this guy.

Josh,

I thought that "Fahrenheit 9/11" was trash, but I agree with Chris that the word "objective" is inapplicable to documentaries as a whole. There are some documentaries that are objective, yes, but objectivity itself is a position--as in, "I refuse to intrude into the subject matter and simply observe". For example, security surveillance cameras that don't move and simply watch the same frame for hours on end are objective, but even that viewpoint is subjective to some degree. After all, why did whoever installed the security surveillance camera choose to point the camera at whatever is being scrutinized?

When you watch something on PBS or the Discovery Channel, the documentarian is making a point about this or that. For example, the documentarian may be disproving a widely-accepted notion of cheetah behavior, or maybe the documentarian is reinforcing the widely-accepted notion. A lot of documentaries may not be as controversial as something like "Fahrenheit 9/11", but that doesn't mean that they're any more or less "objective" than "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Eddie

George W. Bush voluntarily makes a fool of himself on F911 alright. I could say that highly confidently.

So far, there hasn't been that much countering the video footage in F911. And, so you might say it's naive, but I do believe all of the footage of Bush was real and undoctored.

Look, I'm not an investigator. I don't have the capabilities and resources to interview every single person in that video, and ask every person if they said that or not. Or, if that's some actor impersonating you, or if Moore used CGI and movie magic to create your image on the screen. And, I don't have the resources to track articles that refute what moore has said. It looks like you do though since you act like you're the final arbiter of truth. You say Moore distorts the truth, but you don't ever say where does he do that. You just say it. And, I guess that makes you correct? Why not show where he does distort the truth since you know everything?

Well.. this has been pretty ridiculous when i think about it. Here we are arguing over a documentary, when the President started a war without any evidence to support his WMD charges.. and no one here is debating that. these are the crazy times we live in.

"I think the whole debate on Weapons of Mass Destruction is pointless."-Nacht.
Where's your heart? 100,000+ dead Iraqi civilians, 1,400 dead soldiers, tens of thousands of wounded soldiers... tell that to the friends and family of those people and see how they'd react.

Nacht,

I'm sorry, but the dictionary definition is one that would be and is rejected by just about every film theorist, critic or commentator in the world. It's just the wrong tool for the job. From the very start, documentaries relied heavily on invention. Robert Flaherty in "Nanook of the North", often called the first feature documentary, staged entire scenes of Inuit hunting using techniques they hadn't actually used for 50 years. And examples abound from there. The very definition of the term, when first coined, was "CREATIVE TREATMENT of actuality." The definition was specifically formulated to distinguish documentary from other forms of non-fiction (e.g. a 10 minute shot of a lamp) so that if it didn't creatively treat actuality, it WAS NOT a documentary.

Of course, the definition has changed over the years. With the rise of cinema verite in the 50s and 60s, this sense of "objectivity" gained some traction for the first time but, beginning with the highly personal and reflexive documentaries of the 1980s, that claim of "objectivity" has largely been eroded.

K, that was pretty funny Matt. Good job! :D

- EXTERNAL LINK -> what a coincedence. i made this picture for another message board 5 minutes ago.

I am me as you are he and they are us and we are all together

Ok, well, it seems the "source" isn't good enough. How about "Merriam-Webster's" definition? I'm pretty sure they're correct. Here it is: "2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE

Two words I'd like to note in that definition: "Factual" and "objective". I think some of what you said was true CSJ, however, according to the definition above (taken directly from one of, if not the most reputible dictionary), the part about being "objective" is what I've been complaining about. While every "documentary" may have some level of "manipulation", you have to measure "intent". A documentary has to be taken from an objective intention by the documenter. If not, and in the case of Moore, he had every intention from the word go, to manipulate the facts, and be nonobjective. This is no longer a documentary. That's the problem I've had all along. Just because you label something a "documentary" doesn't make it true.


Viter,

YOU have nothing to prove the "information" in the "MOVIE" was factual! YOU haven't provided any information yourself, so who are you to demand facts from me?! All you OR kilgore have provided is information that MOORE provided! What work have YOU done? None. So don't be telling me my point is moot, because I don't go track down the information countering every one of Moore's allegations, when you yourself haven't done a thing! NONE of your points stand on anything but what Moore provided in his film! You haven't provided one shred of information that didn't come from his movie. So don't tell me your point still stands, and is "irrefutible" when you haven't provided any substantial, or "objective" information sources, or information period! You yourself claim "Moore didn't hire any actors, as far as I know" - Viter You don't even know if he hired actors or not! You haven't cross checked ANYTHING! You're claiming your "opinion" as fact!

Well.. That's the point i was trying to get across to the Nacht. Good job, csj!
also, that's why i thought putting that definition up was utterly stupid.

And, still you don't have anything to refute the facts in the movie.

Well.. where is it?

And, my point still stands about Moore's footage being real and irrifutable. Moore didn't hire any actors, as far as I know. And, you cannot make thing some of this stuff up. Trick editing doesn't make the footage not be real.

The footage of the recruiting soldiers in the poorest areas, footage of soldiers sexually humiliating that Iraqi, Bush sitting like a deer in the headlights in a florida classroom, and the list goes on.. all of this haven't been refuted.

They've tried with movies like Fahrenhype, and celsius, but they don't have much material. They fill up their running times by mostly defending the Bushies, and attacking Moore, which makes defeats the point of their movies. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think those movies are bad, and I don't care if they're anti-moore. They just don't have much material to attack the facts and footage of the film.

Take it from a guy who is writing his graduate thesis on this precise subject, the dictionary.com definition quoted is utterly wrong and useless. Film theorists have struggled for decades and continue to struggle over the attempt to define documentary or non-fiction and to distinguish it from non-fiction. EVERY documentary manipulates the facts, from the moment the camera selects a shot to the use of editing, to the choice of subject, music, etc. "Objectivity" is simply not a relevant issue, not the way it is used. A documentary is NOT journalism. The earliest definition of documentary by the very man who coined the term was this: "the creative treatment of actuality."

Stating that "objectivity" isn't the relevant term doesn't mean anything goes. If a documentary makes a truth claim (i.e. "this really happened) there are standards by which it can be judged. However, ALL documentaries, ALL - EVERY ONE EVER MADE, are presented from a point of view and are manipulated by the filmmakers. You have to get over that before you can ever have a useful discussion about them.