Julian RuncanIn Defense Of Michael Moore
June 1st 2010 16:14
When I started this post, I intended to write a review of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, but I realized I spent more then half of it defending Michael Moore from his squad of haters. I decided to dedicate this post to explaining some fundamental documentary concepts that everyone should be aware of. If you still hate Michael Moore after reading this, at least your opinion is an informed one. The review should be up tomorrow.
1) Documentaries Aren't Objective. Ever.
People love to complain that Michael Moore distorts the truth, edits his footage in suggestive ways, and allows his personal bias to affect the objectivity of his films. That's not fair since every single documentary does this. The second footage is edited at all, you're distorting the truth. Even if the film is one continuous, two-hour shot, the audience can still only see what the director points the camera at. All documentary footage is shaped by the filmmaker in some way, so true objectivity can never really occur.
Despite this, some documentaries like to pretend they're purely observational. They use longer takes, on-site sound, and minimize the presence of the filmmaker, but the film is still an argument presented by a person with an opinion. They can choose to present this "natural" footage however they want.
2) Why Filmmakers Like Michael Moore Are Actually More Honest.
Since the editing process creates a bias, all documentaries lean to one side or another. I consider the films that pretend they're not manipulating their audience to be MORE sneaky, since they're lying to their audience. By pretending to present the "truth" with no spin, they're making their films out to be something they're not. While this is a perfectly acceptable, respected, and common documentary style, calling it objective or "better" is incredibly foolish.
Filmmakers like Michael Moore choose to make their presence known, and their bias blatant. Everyone knows what arguments he's trying to make, and this allows an intelligent viewer to regard everything he says critically. By making his manipulations and goal so obvious, he's laying all of his cards onto the table as opposed to hiding his hand. That's a pretty honest way to play the game.
3) If I'm Getting Screwed Either Way, I'd Rather Know About It
All documentaries are manipulative, so ragging on Michael Moore for being upfront about it doesn't make a lot of sense. The guy tweaks and changes things to make them more entertaining, and this helps to bring an issue to the audience's attention. If he really wanted to present his work as neutral, there is a plethora of ways he could have made his influence less obvious.
I honestly believe that Michael Moore isn't trying to brainwash the masses, but actually stimulate discussion about important topics. His techniques usually make for fun to watch films, and hopefully they encourage audiences to engage everything they see with a critical eye.
What's so evil about that?
| 158 |
| Vote |
Comments (2)
Add Comments
