Contemporary documentary and fiction film are becoming increasingly intertwined, and I blame Michael Moore. Although Moore is frequently cited for violating the integrity of the documentary medium, he’s perhaps the most important — but by no means best — documentary filmmaker of our time.
Before I address Moore’s virtual destruction of the documentary, let’s take a look back to the good old days. The documentary film arose in the tumultuous social, political and economic upheaval of the 1930s. The medium then held a journalistic, muckraking-driven focus in its visual documentation of news, history and truth.
The most exemplary form of the documentary is one that adheres to the stylistic and narrative tenants of the Cinéma-Vérité, or direct cinema, genre. These films, shot on location with intimate, hand-held cinematography, are chiefly concerned with presenting the truth without the lavish aesthetics of feature films. The audience, like the filmmaker, becomes a fly-on-the-wall witness to given circumstances. Information is presented to the viewer in bipartisan manner devoid of subjectivity, because the Cinéma-Vérité filmmaker isn’t concerned with dictating one’s opinion on the topic at hand, but rather to arm the viewer with the truth to make his or her own judgment.
But let’s get real, y’all. How many of you were bored with the fly-on-the-wall image? Did you picture some dry BBC special too? Don’t get me wrong. I love me some Cinéma-Vérité, but if there’s one place I don’t turn to for my fix, it’s the documentary film. For that, I depend on Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, the genius Belgium brothers behind the 2006 masterpiece and Cannes Film Festival Palme d’Or-winning “L’Enfant.” There’s a reason why the average viewer doesn’t turn to the documentary for socio-political realism: it doesn’t exist. Documentaries these days are far more interested in entertaining the viewer while providing dollops of fact and truth here and there. America is becoming an increasingly insecure society in which we question and scrutinize everything we see and hear in the realm of politics. And after eight years of the Bush administration’s blatant fear mongering, lies and betrayals, can you blame us?
This skepticism has pervaded movie theaters, too. With our heightened understanding of how power can be abused, detecting partiality in media is easy. Bias is perhaps the most hotly contested topic within the sphere of documentary filmmaking, especially after Michael Moore practically reinvented the genre for the public. Moore’s repertoire of controversial social and political documentaries mark a dramatic shift in the nature of the genre from a quest for the truth to a quest for the truth with the infusion of entertaining fiction film tactics along the way. He’s going to display some facts, tell you how he feels and have you laughing in stitches until the credits roll.
After Moore’s controversial Academy Award-winner “Bowling for Columbine,” the documentary would never be the same. By including fiction film humor gimmicks, a crystal clear presentation of the filmmaker’s ideology, and making the filmmaker a character within the story itself, Moore revived the ailing documentary genre, and audiences ate it up. Three of his films, “Bowling for Columbine,” “Sicko” and “Fahrenheit 9/11,” rank among the top 10 highest-grossing documentaries of all time — the latter film boasts the top spot. “Columbine” sent shockwaves down the spines of audiences, tackling the disturbing Columbine High School shooting and America’s obsession with guns, while vilifying the right wing left and right. This antagonistic, interactive spirit revolutionized the documentary medium and rendered it a resourceful medium for self-expression. Audiences effectively started watching documentaries again, as nearly 70 percent of the top hundred grossing documentaries of all time were released in 2000 or later.
Moore has returned to the spotlight with his latest effort, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” which doesn’t quite match the poignancy of “Columbine” or “Roger and Me,” yet strays from the self-masturbatory shtick of “Fahrenheit.” “Capitalism” analyzes the roots of the global economic meltdown via a comical look at corporate, capitalist America. The film focuses on the epic transfer of taxpayers’ dollars to private financial institutions with heartbreaking glimpses of how these actions affected middle- and lower-income families in America. “Capitalism” has already made a dent in the top hundred grossing documentary list, ranking in at No. 15 after only a week in release.
Moore’s tactics have rightfully undergone great objection, as they discard the aforementioned fundamental job of the documentary: to present the real, objective truth. It’s great that audiences are giving documentaries the attention they rightfully deserve, but it’s important to understand that Moore’s films, by definition, aren’t really documentaries. They’re docu-comedy films by a political pundit — ones that fuse the same three-act structure fiction films employ with documentary forms and stylistic aesthetics. Sure, you’ll hear some startling truths in “Capitalism,” but treat Moore as you would any other politician: with ample skepticism.
It seems that the documentary film has adapted to our twentieth century Tweetin’, Facebook-status-postin’ love for individuality and self-expression. Moore has catered to this growing trend by casting himself, as filmmaker and bystander alike, in the film. It’s difficult to decide whether Moore has been beneficial or detrimental to the growth of the documentary, for in drawing audiences back to the medium, he’s simultaneously destroyed its bipartisan legacy. It’s a textbook “Catch 22,” but as long as audiences continue to question the source of the material onscreen, I’ll applaud Moore for bringing the documentary back to the forefront of contemporary film.
You can reach this columnist at thescene@theeagleonline.com.
