do documentary film makers need to shout at the viewer to get their message across?

T

tomhale

In order to make a successful documentary, do you have to force messages down peoples throats in order to make it successful?

I am making a film and everyone tells us to make a case with the film and force people to think one way by purporting the film as truth.

As everyone knows, this is unethical!

Our trailer and website are underdevelopment and we are told the same thing again- force a message.

How do you strike a balance? Check out our website, any ideas welcome

Thanks,

Tom
www.whatarewedoinghere.net
 
I think your best bet is going to be to research how successful docs have done it in the past. Of course I mean the kind that are well received by basically everyone, like those of Ken Burns, not the Michael Moore variety.
 
S21: the Khmer Rouges Killing Machine is a good example of a hard hitting but extremely low-keyed delivery documentary.
 
Documentaries, like movies, aren't any one thing. They can be relatively objective and fair (no documentary is completely objective), they can reflect the filmmaker's personal view but still truthful, or they can be utterly slanted and biased to the point of fantasy.

Ultimately you have to make the film you want to make and tell the story you want to tell.
 
Truth and reality will in the long run win out. I know that it's easy to say when at the same time Documentaries filled with opinions, and unreality are winning awards and taking it to the bank. But the question I ask you is; what do you want to be known as? The filmmaker who informed and educated his/her viewers to the plight of fill in the blank, or the filmmaker who filled a select group of people who wanted to believe anyway, with non science and half truths?

The bottom line is one day you will be caught if you don't do it right. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but eventually the world will know that you're full of hot air.

Your choice though.

Good luck. I'd really like to see your film if you take the high road. It's a compelling subject.

Chris
 
tomhale said:
In order to make a successful documentary, do you have to force messages down peoples throats in order to make it successful?

I am making a film and everyone tells us to make a case with the film and force people to think one way by purporting the film as truth.

As everyone knows, this is unethical!

Our trailer and website are underdevelopment and we are told the same thing again- force a message.

How do you strike a balance? Check out our website, any ideas welcome

Thanks,

Tom
www.whatarewedoinghere.net
Click to expand...


FIRSTLY
You are incapable of forcing anyone to do anything or think in any manner. That is a reality that should be applied to anythinig you do in life.

Now, in terms of your documentary:

In my opinion, the only thing you can really do with a documentary is give your point of view. You do not have to attempt to force anyone to think in any particular way because ultimately what you will be trying to do is get people to watch your documentary. Your viewers will decide if they want to see your film. They will also decide if they believe what you are saying. I think film viewers are much more savvy than they used to be.

What you need to concern yourself with, in my opinion, is to present your point of view. People will either accpet it or they won't. Your job is to tell your story in a compelling, truthful manner. The implication of doing otherwise is that you have something to hide. If you lie about your subject, I personally believe that no one will give you any credibility in the long run. Do you want to be seen as a untrustworthy source?

Let's talk about the lightning rod that is Michael Moore.

His documentaries present his side very well. I don't think that he lies, but I do think that he has a point of view and is good at letting you know what it is. As a viewer, you have to decide if his story is the whole story. You have to decide if you believe him. I am pretty sure that we don't always get the whole story, but then the other side does very little to dispute the assertions that Moore makes.

A documentary doesn't have to do anything but present a story. What story are you trying to tell? If you feel you have to lie, then maybe your side does not hold water. If you have to lie, then maybe your assertion does not ring true even for you. And that is the problem. Ultimately if it doesn't ring true, then where is the reality of your story or point of view?

The Darfur situation speaks for itself. If this is what we are talking about, you will do the situation a great disservice by not telling the truth and only succeed in putting out dis-information which will do nothing but muddy the waters of an issue that probably needs attention and could use alot of accurate information put out there.

A documentary is about the reality of life, not whatever you can make up. If you make it up, its a narrative, not a documentary.

I am getting off of my soapbox now....

-- spinner :cool:
 
Last edited:
spinner said:
A documentary is about the reality of life, not whatever you can make up. If you make it up, its a narrative, not a documentary.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point.. Michael Moore has a track record of using interviews out of context deliberately to portray a completely different view. If you have seen any of the aftermath from farenheit 9/11, you'd know what I'm talking about.. The injured soldiers were interviewed and asked questions totally unrelated to what was shown in the film. The border guard in washington apparently was never informed that the footage was for a documentary about 9/11. The list goes on and on..

It's one thing to give your point of view, it's another to deliberately distort the answers of interviewees to solidify your "reality".

It certainly sounds like that's not the route that Tom intends to take with this doc, and I applaud that. I don't know what position of this issue you are on, but it sounds like your goal is to do a life study of a few impoverished people, so that viewers can make up their own mind as to whether they are being helped or not.

I think the true challenge is going to be in an accurate portrayal that is as unbiased as possible. For example, if a lot of people are being helped, but the film focuses on one who isn't -- but portrays this as the general overall condition for everyone it's clearly displaying a position against the help being offered -- by making it appear that there is no positive effect.. On the other hand, if it focuses solely on someone whos life has been totally turned around and ignores someone else who isn't being helped, then it glorifies the potentially inadequate help being offered these people and makes it appear entirely successful.
 
Will Vincent said:
It certainly sounds like that's not the route that Tom intends to take with this doc, and I applaud that. I don't know what position of this issue you are on, but it sounds like your goal is to do a life study of a few impoverished people, so that viewers can make up their own mind as to whether they are being helped or not.
Click to expand...

...and that is the point of a documentary...


I think the true challenge is going to be in an accurate portrayal that is as unbiased as possible. For example, if a lot of people are being helped, but the film focuses on one who isn't -- but portrays this as the general overall condition for everyone it's clearly displaying a position against the help being offered -- by making it appear that there is no positive effect.. On the other hand, if it focuses solely on someone whos life has been totally turned around and ignores someone else who isn't being helped, then it glorifies the potentially inadequate help being offered these people and makes it appear entirely successful.
Click to expand...

I think either way, what you have here is propaganda, which doesn't really serve either side. You end up with dissinformation again.

-- spinner :cool:
 
spinner said:
His documentaries present his side very well. I don't think that he lies, but I do think that he has a point of view and is good at letting you know what it is. As a viewer, you have to decide if his story is the whole story. You have to decide if you believe him. I am pretty sure that we don't always get the whole story, but then the other side does very little to dispute the assertions that Moore makes.
Click to expand...

I think a better, and somewhat less controversial example, would be An Inconvenient Truth. It's factual, objective, but not balanced in the modern journalistic sense. And the reason it's not balanced is because the truth is not balanced. The overwhelming consensus among scientists around the world is that climate change is happening and that it is man-made.

Since the opposition view consists of only a handful of scientists and is almost entirely made of American political conservatives, it would actually be unfair and unbalanced to present that view as an equally viable theory when it is in reality a political fringe movement. The media often makes this mistake, as illustrated in the film, of giving equal time to a relatively small opposition and giving the public the perception that the opposition view is bigger than it is.

Another example is Judgement Day, a terrific NOVA documentary about the Evolution vs Creationism trial in Dover, PA. While they are careful to portray the ID proponents as sincere people trying to help the community, they do not present their ideas as valid scientific theory because that would be false.
 
The example I had in mind is the excellent Ken Burns doc that's been playing on PBS for the past month or so... The War. It focuses on the effects the war had on a few families. So it's a view of the war as a whole, related through the story of a small handful of people.
 
Isn't Word Play about scrabble or crossword puzzles or somethin'?

I have seen some of Burns' doc The War. What I've seen is really good....

-- spinner :cool:
 
Will Vincent said:
The example I had in mind is the excellent Ken Burns doc that's been playing on PBS for the past month or so... The War. It focuses on the effects the war had on a few families. So it's a view of the war as a whole, related through the story of a small handful of people.
Click to expand...


As usual, I agree with you Will. The War doesn't really try to be the be all and end all of World War 2. Actually I heard an interview of Burns where he said that he was trying to give a glimpse from the eyes of a few, not a historical treatment for the entire war.

In this case, and I'm not trying to say how it should go, they actually could show the life or the experiences of a few, with just a comment that it's in essence a biography, and not a commentary on systems or programs. I think that it would be better, as you said, to show all sides, but either are ways to go. Let's face it, there are nuts everywhere, and usually they're some for each side. But if you tell the story, and cover both or all sides, you can let the viewer decide which side is correct.

Of course it's easy to say, and hard to do. The filmmakers opinions are hard not to poke out somewhere...just ask most of todays media!

Chris
 
cibao said:
But if you tell the story, and cover both or all sides, you can let the viewer decide which side is correct.
Click to expand...

Not only is there no obligation for a filmmaker to hide his or her opinions, it is often irresponsible to show both or all sides as if they are equally valid. That is what journalists often do on issues like evolution vs creationism in the aforementioned case in Dover, PA as depicted in the NOVA documentary Judgement Day. To present creationism to the viewer as an equally valid scientific theory would be dishonest. To present global warming skepticism as equally valid within the scientific community would also be dishonest.

But in cases in which there is no consensus or objective reality, then there still wouldn't be an obligation by the filmmaker to withold his own opinion or let an audience decide which side is correct (as, by definition, there is no correct answer). For example, a documentary coming out in January hosted by Ben Stein argues that ID proponents have been unfairly excluded from scientific discussion. You can bet that in no way will this documentary be fair or balanced and that it will conclude the specific view that science is actively anti-religious and does not give a fair shake to creationism. That is their prerogative, as long as their assertions are accurate.
 
Last edited:
Beeblebrox said:
Not only is there no obligation for a filmmaker to hide his or her opinions, it is often irresponsible to show both or all sides as if they are equally valid. That is what journalists often do on issues like evolution vs creationism in the aforementioned case in Dover, PA as depicted in the NOVA documentary Judgement Day. To present creationism to the viewer as an equally valid scientific theory would be dishonest. To present global warming skepticism as equally valid within the scientific community would also be dishonest.
Click to expand...

...I dunno...
I come down on the side of telling both sides, however, IF one side has overwhelming evidence or a lack thereof, that should be something that the filmmaker or journalist should make clear and let the chips fall where they may. I don't find this irresponsible.

Also, when you talk about journalists and media, in my opinion, they should be 'fair and balanced'. They should be accurate. They should be tell both sides or they are doing a disservice to the viewership. When they don't, this is how people don't know all the facts they need in order to vote in an informed fashion, regardless of what your opinion is....(stop me before I hijack the thread!!!! I have three examples!:lol:)

-- spinner :cool:
 
Last edited:
spinner said:
I come down on the side of telling both sides, however, IF one side has overwhelming evidence or a lack thereof, that should be something that the filmmaker or journalist should make clear and let the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...

It is the latter that I'm really talking about. That's not the same as presenting both sides so that the audience can decide which is correct, as was asserted earlier. It would be irresponsible in a documentary about evolution vs creationism to present creationism as a valid scientific theory, because that is false.

Modern journalism frequently fails in this regard by presenting the issue as two equally valid sides of an opinion on the origins of life. And as was discussed in An Inconvenient Truth, they do the same with climate change, by disproportionately representing global warming skepticism with 50% of the coverage even though it makes up a miniscule amount of scientific views on the subject.

It's irresponsible because it grossly exaggerates the doubt and uncertainty about these issues to the public, making them believe that the jury is still out among scientists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top