Independent journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup.
Have the great doc titans lost their oomph? And if so, is that such a bad thing?
I got to ruminating over these questions when I began considering how, this September, we saw the two most popular documentary filmmakers release new works practically right on top of each other: Ken Burns' The National Parks: America's Best Idea on PBS, and Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, in close to a thousand theaters. Both were released to good amounts of fanfare and then, well, they became yesterday's news.
Burns' series is truly beautifully shot. It's strong, effective, moving and important. And outside of my mother and brother, I haven't heard anyone talk about it once. Even Burns' World War II series a couple years back created more ripples in the cultural water cooler.
Read more after the jump...
As for Moore's film — eek, I still haven't seen it. Have you? There just wasn't anything that made me run to the theater the way I ran on the opening weekends of his previous docs. It's been 20 years since Moore came out with Roger & Me and 5 years since Fahrenheit 9/11, and although I saw him on news channels doing his shtick in September for Capitalism, it almost seemed like the volume was turned down. Maybe it was the Rutgers hat he was wearing, but he just didn't come across as ferociously as he has in the past. So it's not surprising that Capitalism will end up making around $15 million, which is less than any of his previous films made by a long shot, dating back ten years to his big failure, The Big One.
Why the lack of enthusiasm? Is it just me? I think it's because these guys are not breaking through any more, and that's been true for quite some time. They have, god forbid, become part of the mainstream.
Something needs to break against the currents to really shake up the culture. Or somebody. I wonder who that will be.
Talk About This
The problem with these bigshot documentary producers is that they, as you say, have become part of the mainstream -- but without the drama and excitement of Holywood. Let's face it, most documentaries today are deadly boring. And the problem with most documentaries that "make it" today are so ridden by TV & Hollywood "storytelling" formulas that they are predictable, albeit beautifully shot in many cases. Even the docs presented at film festivals tends to be pretty dull and predictable. I work with a brilliant observational documentary (Laurentiu Calciu) who manages to capture the drama and excitement of everyday life, but like most good documentary makers remains unknown.
by Rupert Wolfe Murray at 1:43 PM on October 26, 2009
I think it's more about finding the correct platform for people to view these documentaries. What I have found teaching documentary production is that students watch more on youtube then on broadcast, cable and certainly theatrical. It's hard to find any content delivery service that will allow you to watch an archive of documentaries on demand. This is where I think the future most go. Because young people are NOT watching television. Then finding a way to pay for the production of new content. The industry MUST change or die.
by Thelma at 1:47 PM on October 26, 2009
Michael Moore lost credibility with me with the outright fabrications he pulled off in "Bowling for Columbine". The thing is, he didn't need to make stuff up to make compelling arguments and/or make people think -- so when it comes out that he put words in people mouths and staged scenes to make things more dramatic, he has about as much authenticity as Dateline: NBC blowing up pickup trucks with rocket engines. I vote with my dollars and won't feed that man any more of my money.
As for Ken Burn's National Parks miniseries, it is indeed beautiful -- but it's also SLOW and repetitive. I've not been able to make it through an episode without drifting off to sleep. Other Burns documentaries have kept the pace well and gotten the viewer involved. I'm suspecting that since he is now more well known, there's more "artistic control" given to him, and he wanders on for FAR too long about the same thing. For compelling documentaries, "The March of the Penguins" and "Planet Earth" come immediately to mind as comprehensive works that engage the viewer and keep things moving. Maybe I like the "storytelling" aspect of it -- but isn't that what makes any document interesting -- the ability of the author to present the information in a way that engages the reader (or viewer?).
I will agree with Thelma that the industry must change. I recorded the National Parks series on my TiVo and watch it on my time. I've been consuming television this way since 2001 and I have no plans to return to a broadcast schedule anytime soon.
Maybe I don't appreciate documentaries "in the right way", but I'm certainly not going to spend 12 hours of my life (which I never get back!) on something like watching boring television (documentary or otherwise), I'd rather read a good book (or two)!
by Jason at 6:39 PM on October 27, 2009
Michael Moore may have started off making documentaries, but what he makes now is hardly qualifies as a documentary. SICKO is a good example here, by playing fast and loose with the facts and using a person who is basically committing healthcare fraud (to get on the Canadian system) to support your arguments, you undermine your credibility.
A political-type documentary by definition probably isn't going to give equal time to all sides (unlike a journalistic-type). However, any political/advocacy documentary considered thought provoking should be able to back up it's claims--Moore really can't do this. Moore's films are much closer to simple entertainment, than even a political documentary, because he often can't really back up his claims.
by Louis at 7:46 PM on October 27, 2009
I thought Moore did a great job with SICKO. My own family has never been struck with a serious medical crisis and the resultant financial devastation. So they have always mouthed the conservative knee-jerk mumbo jumbo fueled by think tanks and dished out to evangelical radio constituents.
However, as a mortgage professional I have witnessed the ravaging financial effects that medical bills have on credit and on one's ability to recuperate financially. When those nightmares are visited upon YOUR family, then you will recognize the need for healthcare reform.
So in my case, Moore's film was an effective jumping-off place for conversation in my good ole knee-jerk Republican household.
He established that insurance companies deny coverage to claimants in order to maintain profits
He established that politicians are paid big $$$ by insurance lobbyists to maintain the status quo.
He showed that other countries care for their sick and put profits second.
Sure he did some melodramatic stuff. But how about corresponding with the 911 firefighters who were in Moore's film to ask how the film affected them?
I say, RIGHT ON MICHAEL! You made a potent film about the healthcare industry, and the point of the film was to engage people. You did.
And although I have not seen Capitalism: A Love Story, my guess is the same is being done here.
The author of the blog has no idea whether Michael Moore has lost his ooomph because he hasn't seen the film either. His films demand that we take a look at our "sacred cows" and engage in discussion.
In Moore's case, I think our lack of oooomph is the problem.
by Spencer at 9:03 PM on October 27, 2009
Huh? I saw both and they were both wonderful. Yours is the first article I've seen with this point of view and I only found it because it was posted in facebook. It appears that you don't really care enough about good documentaries to watch them.
Can't please everyone! Now you are one of their many detractors. Congrats on the negativity!
It's actually rather odd to see these two documentaries lumped into one column. One is about the beauty of our National Parks and the other is about the destruction of many lives and of our economy by greedy unregulated capitalists.
by M. Lewis at 9:37 PM on October 27, 2009
to answer one of your questions, yes, it is just you. before michael moore, docs didn't even get released in theaters. why are you even writing a blog for pbs about documentaries if you haven't seen the movie? and why is pbs posting this on my facebook page? i need a job, i am a grad student in cultural documentary studies. i could write a blog for pbs and i would watch the films before i trashed them.
by bill at 10:13 PM on October 27, 2009
Thanks, Rupert, Spencer and Thelma, for your comments. Jason, you make an interesting point about whether these filmmakers have risen in such status that they are going unchecked. Don't we see that happening with great directors all the time, of both docs and fiction films (Spike Lee, for instance)? Too much greatness can lead to bad places. Werner Herzog is one of the greatest directors of all time, but I thought Encounters at the End of the World was disappointing navel-gazing.
As for my angry friends: how funny that you accuse me of negativity and condemn me for not seeing Moore's film when you didn't bother to read my post. You've neglected to note that my post is specifically about the lack of popular excitement for these films rather than a review of both works. But if you're in denial that Moore has his detractors (which I am not one of), I suggest you read Louis's comment above, or, for that matter, The Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe (my old trivia buddy Wesley Morris!), The New Yorker, Salon, etc. etc. I'm not a film critic, but I appreciate your thinking of me as one. Best of luck in your job search.
by Doc Soup Man at 11:18 PM on October 27, 2009
I have seen both of these and think that they are both wonderful...then I just like documentaries and with few exceptions don't bother much with regular network or cable TV.....Yes, the Burns videos were a little slow and boring and I too fell asleep a few times, but the fact that they are made and have documented this incredibly wonderful heritage is priceless. Watching the parks that my family visited when I was a teenager really brought back memories....And as for Michael Moore....if half of what he puts in his documentaries is true, then that alone is an indictment of his subject!! I saw Capitalism in our local theatre this weekend and was spellbound the entire 2 hours....and I thought I knew a lot about the atrocities of this economic system.....so you should really take some time out and see it! As to your question about why these two films didn't get much play....that's the way the system works....it makes it almost mainstream to watch documentaries now where as 15 years or so ago, it was still a little on the "radical" side to say that you watched documentaries....so when it is "forbidden fruit", more folks flock to it to check it out....nowadays documentaries are as mainstream as cartoons and NASCAR (neither of which I watch!)
by Pat at 12:15 AM on October 28, 2009
Doc soup man, in fairness to bill, he did read your blog. While part of your blog deals with the lack of ripples these films are causing, you specifically wrote "Why this lack of enthusiasm? Is it just me?" Not "audiences" or "me and my friends", etc. And there is an implied negative review of the films--if a friend of mine sees a film and he's rather blah about it, I won't go.
The biggest problem with the question you raise in your blog is that you are really judging KB and MM on one data point--their most recent work. Yet for KB, he has a large following, and I know many folks who looked forward to watching the series and really enjoyed it, though it's not exactly the stuff of water cooler conversation. I don't see any drop off in his popularity for PBS (I haven't seen the ratings though).
With MM, his last film Sicko! was huge and created a stir. Perhaps his recent film isn't gaining the same traction since so many people already know the problems with capitalism and are dealing with that reality up close and personal and don't need a film to tell them about it. If that's the case, it's not a reflection on MM or his film. Maybe if it came out a year earlier, things would have been different. Your blog question might've been "can the Titans grow even bigger??"
As you point out, they are mainstream filmmakers, which means they produce works on a regular basis. When that happens, some of that work will do better than others, either at the box office or striking a cord with the public. It also means that they don't need to be judged on the ripples they create, but the value to their investors.
So to the question of your blog, have the titans moved on? A little too early to tell, and a little too early to even wonder. The whole idea that "you're only as good as the last thing you did" is really only relevant if the last thing you did is about the only thing you've ever done.
by UAN at 10:45 AM on October 28, 2009
I cannot understand why this author chose to write this without seeing the latest Moore movie. It seems a tad ludicrous to me, even more for PBS to be featuring the story. I'm not some die-hard Moore fan but I have observed a somewhat knee-jerk reaction AGAINST him take hold in the last couple of years - even by liberals. Moore makes essay pieces, and IMO, they should be well-researched (I would be honestly surprised if they weren't considering a) his budgets and b) the level of public scrutiny they receive), but they don't have to be fair and balanced. The point of an essay piece is to present evidence to support your thesis. Just accept that this is what Moore does, and yes, he does it bombastically. That's okay - at least people are talking about things that they might otherwise ignore.
by Stephanie at 2:44 PM on October 28, 2009
Why are you reviewing films or even discussing them on a professional level if you aren't a film critic? Maybe the problem is the diluted entertainment industry in periphial and not the actual product. If industry idiots keep blogging about that which they know nothing about where does that leave us filmakers? Now we are reduced to not even deserving a real critic that views films before discussing? I'm wondering where the real professionals are. I want to know why a credible, reputible enterprise such as PBS has a lazy, uneducated and trite person on their blog? I say give the job to Jason, the last thing this country needs is someone else talking about what they don't know or care about! Fire the blogger...he sounds like a wannabe celebrity hanger on who obviously knows little about film and even less about the purpose of the documentary, that is a nonfiction film, which is to illuminate real and very human experience.
by Estella Elliot at 11:25 PM on October 30, 2009