After hearing about Farenheit 9/11 being a very successful
documentary I started thinking about what qualifies it as such.
Certainly, the film festivals and award shows have criteria.
But, also, this documentary is different than say a PBS one
which explores a historical subject that is long past.  Think
Ken Burn's The Civil War, for instance.

Anyone want to venture a guess?  It's pretty straight forward
if you think about it.

Anon

PS Would it be too much to ask that the movie itself not be
discussed in this thread - they are plenty of other threads that
do that.

Long form non-fiction film.

It's more than that.   There are two Oscars awarded for documentaries every year: one for documentaty features and one for documentary short subjects.   The general qualifier would be a non-fiction film  I'm sure that the Bushies will argue that it must also be objective and fair, but that has never been a factor in documentaries.  All of the best documentaries have a story to tell, a point to make and a strong point of view.  In terms of objectivity, here are some films that have been nominated for and/or won the Oscar for best documentary:

The Fighting Lady, produced by the United States Navy

Resisting Enemy Interrogation, produced by the United States Army Air Force

The Last Bomb, produced by the United States Army Air Force

The True Glory, produced by the Governments of Great Britain and the United States of America

Journey into Medicine, produced by the United States Department of State Office of Information and Educational Exchange

I'm sure those movies were all very objective documentaries

Several great exemplars:

Harvest of Shame (Edward R. Murrow - 1960)

Silent Spring of Rachel Carson (CBS Reports - 1963)

-- Modified on 7/9/2004 6:54:53 PM

-- Modified on 7/10/2004 9:50:22 PM

Just being non-fiction doesn't make it a documentary.  I'm
sure there are plenty of completely factual war dramas.  For
instance, I saw the "Battle of Algiers" recently.  It's a film
about the resistance to French colonial rule and how the French
attempted to deal with it.  Even though it's non-fiction it is
not a documentary.  Perhaps the deal killer here is that
any conversation would necessarily be made up - no matter how
truthful the dialogue sounded.

The no actor thing is just a rule of thumb that works in most
cases.  Just to be sure I checked the acadamy award site for
their definition.  It did allow for reenactments which I guess
would have to be done by actors.  Reenactments, IMO, are a sign
of cheesy true crime TV shows.

fr


-- Modified on 7/11/2004 9:42:07 AM

Moore himself does offer his own commentary, as a voice-over on the film clips that he presents, however, he generally let's Bush speak for himself.  Which is why it is so damning.  But, of course, without actually having seen the film, you'd never know this.

Michael Moore, however, doesn't strive to even appear even-handed.  He has an axe to grind, and doesn't care to present things that are counter to his world-view.  This is why his films are better labeled propaganda.  Take his movie with a healthy dose of cynicism, as one might Rush Limbaugh on the other end of the political spectrum.

Despite the fact that over 800 brave Americans have been killed on that same mission since that bit of "documentary" was filmed.