Moore

[CrawlingKaos]

Been hearing alot of people bashing Moore's film F9/11, mainly because it is not 'a documentary'. So what is a true documentary? Is it simply the factual presentation of a real event? Seems to me all documentaries are told from the filmmaker's POV or opinion, regardless of whether you as a viewer are aware of this or not. I always think about reality tv and ask the question: are they revealing the truth or making one up? what do you think?

[Multiplex Manner]

Generally when I hear 'documentary' I think of a film which presents real footage of actual events. Obviously Michael Moore expands on this a lot with styalisation and personalizes it. The purpose of a documentary, however, depends entirely on it's subject. Some, like 'Capturing the Friedmans', analyze a controversial event to try and find the 'truth' behind what has happened. Films such as 'Bowling for Columbine', however, are made by people who already have all the facts and their purpose is to inform the audience with what they feel is important knowledge.
Then there are documentaries such as 'Complete Unknown', which are specialised for a specific audience, who would probably be the only people to find it interesting.
On Reality TV, you'd be hard pressed to find a reality program which just exists to show us what happens in our lives. Big Brother (UK), for example, are blatantly unsubtle in their manipulating of situations. They set up scenarios knowing that it will cause conflict and upset. The majority of what we see on reality TV which causes outcry is due to sly editing and implying what is not being said. The TV companies know how to do this, and because the novelty of reality TV has worn off, they need to go to extremes to keep our attention. Call it unethical or whatever, but at the end of the day, reality TV exists to entertain and receive an audience. And, at the risk of condeming the Western world to a sad existence, nothing turns us on more than seeing people like ourselves show how vunerable they really are.

[Multiplex Manner]

Saw Farenheit 9/11 a couple of days ago - it was very good. I think I prefer it to Bowling for Columbine - this film has less footage of Michael Moore carrying out his own experiments and projects, and more focus on the facts and what's really important.
It will definitely please the crowds - in fact, the cinema audience gave it a round of applause - Bush is presented as the most inept president in years, and with solid evidence.
Again, Moore does a good job in exposing people for what they are - occasionally with their oblivious consent - and this film is definitely worth seeing, if not just as a great film then to find out something new.
I'd categorise this as a documentary - I don't see what someone who says it is not would. It simply presents the facts with opinions and input from Michael Moore, but he still leaves the audience to make their own mind up on most of the matters.

[CrawlingKaos]

Some people might argue with you on your final words, but you know what ... fox news gave it a glowing review! First time they ever lived up to their tagline 'fair and balanced'.

I was going to see it but had car problems and you see, closest theater that's showing it is 80 miles away!