rayce32

In times of turmoil, the role of the documentary filmmaker becomes a thriving and essential function. When handled responsibly, their films can wake us up to a multitude of issues we haven't previously considered or been privey to.

With our country at war, several filmmakers have produced works aimed at knocking the current adminsitration's sloppy tactics and the senselessness of the war efforts they foster.

By far, it was the Vietnam-era film "Hearts and Minds" that became the beacon of what a war documentary should be. The film follows GI's as they fearfully, but bravely tread through the foreign terrain of Vietnam. More than anything, it gave you a tactile sense of how it felt to be there; our troops are shown creating bonds with their fellow soldiers, conversing with the Vietnamese citizens and grappling with the madness of their predicament. All film is manipulation, to be sure, but "Hearts and Minds" played like an honest slice-of-life portrait, crafting an imposing anti-war statement through honest and unfettered observation.

The true nature of a documentary has suffered a considerable transformation thanks to the efforts of Michael Moore. Not too long ago, a true documentary filmmaker yearned for truth; they would delve into and document their issues with minimal personal intrusion and let the chips fall where they may. They would be encouraged to leave their agendas at the door. "Bowling for Columbine" found Moore struglling with why America is such an inherently violent society. While he certainly had axes to grind with this attempt, the majority of the film felt like a discovery for both he and his audience. It's scope continually narrowed and widened as he posed theories that, while well worth considering, were not necessarily sold as truth. Through most of the film, he asked tough questions and let the chips fall where they may.

With "Fahrenheit 9/11", Moore was too incensed to follow this code -- he set out to make what even he described as a "propaganda" film. Oliver Stone attempted much the same feat with his masterpiece "JFK", but he was protected under the shroud of narrative fiction. If Moore were to have attempted a thinly vieled work of fiction as Stone did, the film's many unfounded "truths" and incessantly slanted point of view would be easier pills to swallow. As a work of pure documentary filmmaking, though, his tactics would have to be considered irresponsible. Perhaps, the most offensive aspect of Moore's style lies in his obsessive showmanship. The real subject of the film inevitably becomes Michael Moore himself.

Personally, I agree with quite a bit of the content and sentiments expressed in "Fahrenheit 9/11". But I can also recognize the manner in which it retards the documentary form. This, in itself, would not be as bothersome if Moore didn't posses so much influence over his fellow documentarians. The entire form is beginning to alter as a result of "Fahrenheit"; Moore's film grossed big money and made the incendiary "propaganda" piece a force to be reckoned with.

The greatest flaw of Moore's film lies in its failure to fairly present a contradictory point of view. The opposition answered with "Fahrenhype 9/11", a direct argument against many of the accusations presented in Moore's film; in effect, they responded to his propaganda with a product of their own propaganda. And so it goes on and on...

I'm still waiting for a product that explores all sides of this particular issue with a point of view that is considerably more impartial. Present both sides of the story with the same sense of fairness and let me decide. This kind of defensive propaganda has not produced the kind of dialogue we need, because it drowns out any semblance of productive intelligence.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" exerts quite a bit of energy in presenting its theories as absolute fact. When someone confronts Moore in the media and personally takes issue with him on a particualr accusation, he often hems and haws as he acknowledges that it might not be as factual as he originally stated, but he never fails to point out that there are still plenty of live rounds that overwhelm the occasional blank. This is dangerous territory for a documentarian, but Moore can escape with minor scrapes because, in the end, he is a powerful vocal presence and an incredibly persuasive and entertaining filmmaker.

"Why We Fight" managed only a subtle buzz when it was released earlier this year; any anti-war documentary has to struggle now to be heard over Michael Moore's often self-promoted thunder. You can almost divide the film into two halves: the first half is a retread of the issues brought up in "Bowling for Columbine" and the second is a retread of those displayed in "Fahrenheit 9/11". But the problem with the film lies in the fact that is a retread and not a re-examination. Personally, as a bleeding liberal, even I must confess that I am consistently disappointed that every modern documentation of war doesn't bother representing an opposing point of view.

The title "Why We Fight" supposes an intellectual or philisophical study of what it is in us that makes us predisposed to violence as a means for peace. In the end, the film fails to even touch on these notions and instead summizes that it all comes down to money. Maybe this is true, but it happens to be the only explanation the film ever bothers to explore.

The leader in documentary filmmaking, by far, is HBO. With their America Undercover series, they have enlightened audiences on the issues of race, homeslessness, drug abuse and many other troubling aspects of American society. They accomplish this with an unparalleled clarity by allowing the subject to speak for itself. Next week, they will run Spike Lee's four hour documentary on Hurricane Katrina. Lee has made several fair-minded and passionate documentaries for HBO in the past (4 Little Girls, Jim Brown: An American Hero)and I'm sure this will be a similar stellar effort.

The wanna-be Michael Moores should take a lesson from HBO, a company that consistently create works that exude the observational quality of films like "March of the Penguins" and apply them to more volatile and explosive subjects.

Bowling for Columbine: A-
Fahrenheit 9/11: B+
Why We Fight: C+