Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush Pt II

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: I want to know what you think is the fundamental essense of a real documentary.

Essentially, I liken it to Andy Warhol's Empire. There's no slant in that film. No editing. 8 hours of raw footage of the empire state building. Not very interesting, I'll grant you. You just plop the camera in front of the phenomena. This basically shows something *real* and from there shows all the stuff surrounding it. The History Channel's piece on Fowling pieces (shotguns) was a documentary. Their pieces on just about anything qualify as documentary. Even Mail Call, which I call Gonzo Documentary as an insider joke of sorts.

How many 'sides' to an issue do you think there can be?

Well, there's often more than one, at least. If you only show one on fair ground, you're being biased, especially when you actively demonize the other side/sides through manipulative editing.

How exactly do you define objectivity?

Before we get into the serious moral bankruptcy of solipsism, let's get to the issue at hand.

Objectivity is the straight presentation of any factual data. Deliberate deception, going right ahead and piecing together a presentation that allows the viewer to turn his own heuristic process on himself to come to false conclusions at your vindication, is defintely far from objective. It's outright malicious conduct, no doubt about it.

I ask this mainly because your statements that Moore is not a true documentarian seem to stem largely from a dislike of what he says, rather than from any clear idea of what a 'real' documentary is.

Deliberate deception may be entertaining, hell, watch Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will. Entertaining as anything, really fun to watch, even if you want to tie everyone on screen to a pillory and arc-weld their ass shut. That entertainment doesn't make it a documentary.

Now, a documentarian would film things, and show them, in singular, long takes. Removing the possiblity of perceptual distortion. Furthermore, a documentarian would take the more straight shot over the better one. So if he had to take down a less cinematically effective shot in service to honesty, he would. Moore fails to do this more than once, preferring fictional film and dramatic style editing techniques over documentarian techniques.

One of the best documentarian edits that I can think of, the most famous, isn't even in a documentary. It's in Goodfellas.

Now, this is a famous scene in the movie: Henry takes Karen to the Copacabana club for the first time. The whole thing, from them getting out of the car, to them being seated at the table in the club right up front to watch Bobby Vinton courtesy of the house, is filmed in one take. Over 180 seconds long. Well, it's also filmed entirely from one camera, so there's no cuts. Just the camera following them through. A documentarian would prefer this shot, for its ability to capture the event as faithfully as possible, (let's not forget how damn cool it was to watch) despite the awkwardness such a shot would present, in terms of equipment and the crew.

However, Moore uses a short-track edit, combined with an audio track not from the original event, but from the staged version of those events, during one scene. The Heston Walk-out. Heston did walk away, why exactly is unknowable, considering that, in another anti-documentarian move, Moore omitted 3/4 of what happened during the interview. The walking out itself is shown in very fast back-and-forth editing, real heavy turn-around type stuff. Well, nowhere do we see a second camera, considering the pace of the editing, it can't be anything less than it being filmed in at least two takes. Then there's the fact that the optical sound track matches up with the front (second, staged) take, and we don't have, from a veridic proof test angle, any sort of way of knowing what Moore said to Heston, if Heston responded in any way, if Heston was running away defeated, or if Moore just had to pare the crap out of a couple of scenes and add his own staged versions to avoid looking like the biggest horse's ass in the world. Considering the underlyingly deceptive quality of the film as a whole (akin to propaganda, as opposed to real documentary) I'm lead to believe, and this is my conjecture (the rest is fact, fact in that you have to start talking about purple moons and temporal distortion to get away with disagreement) that what is missing is enough to make Moore look like a redundant, maybe even stupid man, who pestered a guy multiple times after answering a question quite thoroughly, from a position more experienced, more realistic, and more intoned to reality than his attacker. Then he follows him out, yells "Wait!" "Hey!" or what have you, waves him off, nods him off, or whatever, and then, in the cutting room, he throws the second optical sound track over it to make it look like Heston responded to something that he didn't even hear Moore say.

But Cerek, please don't tell me that at your age you still believe in such things as objective facts

Tell this to your kids for me, if you have them, or if you ever do:

"All truth and lies are the same! Now all that matters is if you're good at it!" See what kind of person they turn into. Why wouldn't you do that? Because it's a morally bankrupt idea and if you do this, what you're doing is criminal!

Next up is the fact that, if Moore shows what he wants to show, fine, but what if in the process he is showing you something, allowing your heuristic process to assemble something, that isn't real? Before you go into what is real, this is clearly a violation of any concept of truth...

I find it interesting that people had a more concrete grip on the world (or were more willing to) when they couldn't even prove that wood was in any way different from steel, other than they reacted to getting hit differently.

Swap interesting with pathetic at your disposal.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: quote: Originally posted by Morgeruat: For my definition of a documentary I'd rather compare the old Disney animal documentaries to the National Geographic documentaries on animals, while the Disney ones are more fun to watch (at least they were when I was growing up) they are much more selective of the material you'l be shown, one on otters for instance wouldn't show their predators except in a "watch the cute otter make the mean fox/coyote/etc look stupid as it gets away", whereas the National geographic ones I've seen tend more towards focusing on an animal, say a wildebeast, following herd migrations, and then a lion, or cheetah attack, then moving on to follow the predator around and watch what they do, it was a much more objective look at the subject matter, and while it was much harsher for a young child to watch, it paints a better and more full picture of life in the real world for these animals than the Disney "cute animals acting cute" documentaries.

Again, by definition please, not example. I don't want an example of what you think a real documentary, I want to know what you think is the fundamental essense of a real documentary.

How many 'sides' to an issue do you think there can be?
How exactly do you define objectivity?

I ask this mainly because your statements that Moore is not a true documentarian seem to stem largely from a dislike of what he says, rather than from any clear theory on what a 'real' documentary is. [/QUOTE]Objectivity is not inventing facts to shove your point of view down someones throat, or covering up details that inject reality into the ajenda you're trying to push (not showing predators getting the otter, or clipping bits and pieces of a speach to make it sound arrogant and defiant). It's turning on the camera and letting the film see all that happens, not just what you want it to show because it will sell better.

{edit} Which Oblivian said better than I did, and sooner.

[ 07-28-2004, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Oblivion - I'm curious about your issues with the Heston interview and walk-out. From what I saw, Moore kept asking Heston if he wanted to apologize to the parents of Kayla (from Flint, MI) and to the survivors of Columbine. Since Heston never held a "big gun rally" in Flint, MI, he didn't feel any need to apologize - but it also seemed as if the Alzheimer's may have been bothering him a bit. You could see some uncertainty on his face and it seemed like he was trying to remember what gun rally Moore was talking about. It was embarassing for him that he couldn't remember the rally, and it was very insidious of Moore (IMHO) to keep hounding him because of the glimmer of uncertainty, trying to make him think he did owe them an apology.

In the end, it looked like Heston figured out that - in his opinion - he hadn't done anything wrong, yet Moore kept saying over and over "Don't you feel you owe them an apology? Do you want to apologize to them for your actions?" In the face of such badgering, Heston just decided to get up and leave the interview rather than saying (or doing) something he might later regret.

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say the walk-out had to be filmed in two takes. I can't imagine Heston actually coming back for a second take after Moore insistent requests for an apology. When Heston got up, he walks towards the cameraman. He approaches the cameraman, then the film cuts to a scene of Heston walking away from the cameraman. To me, it just looked like Heston got up and walked out, going right by the cameraman in the process. The footage of him going by the cameraman may have been too "close-up" to use. Then we see Heston walking away.

To my admittedly untrained eye, it looks like Heston just got up and walked out and the camera followed him all the way. The part where he actually passes the camera may have been cut because he was too close for a clear shot, or the camera may have actually had to be moved for him to pass, which would have given us footage of the floor, ceiling or wall.

I also have no idea what you are talking about in regards to the optical sound tracks. I would really like better explanations of these points so that I can understand them better.

[Ronn_Bman]

Just as one man's trash is another man's treasure, one man's documentary is another's propaganda.

[The Hierophant]

OK. Well, have you guys watched Farenheit then? Because to me, 'plopping the camera in front of the phenomena' is predominantly what Moore seemed to be doing in it. I mean, really, I don't know what else to say. [img]smile.gif[/img]

You guys seem to be saying that 'filming real life stuff' makes a documentary. But that's what Moore does. I mean, History Channel documentaries are edited to hell and back as well, as are National Geographic, and Discovery Channel.. you name it. Footage is selectively chosen to convey a thesis. It's up to you whether you agree with that thesis or not. But it's still part of making a documentary.

I dunno, this is weird, I've never encountered this sort of obstinancy before. I guess I should congratulate you guys I mean, you do realise that absolutely all language is propaganda in one way or another right? But so what? What's the big deal?


And Oblivion : Where's all this talk about solipcism and moral bankruptcy coming from man?

[Ronn_Bman]

Obviously all things in life have a slant, but I've never seen anything on the History Channel, National Geographic, or the Discovery Channel that I consider to be as dishonest as Moore's work.

The awards for obstinance can go to most involved on both sides. Those of us who dislike his work don't doubt his right to put forth his point of view, nor doubt the right of others to enjoy and/or agree with it, but we have the right to call it as we see it. What really is shocking to us, and worthy of congratulations, is those who enjoy Moore's work while acting so oblivious and dismissive to the discrepancies in it.

[ 07-29-2004, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[The Hierophant]

Heh. Ok then.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: I dunno, this is weird, I've never encountered this sort of obstinancy before. I guess I should congratulate you guys I mean, you do realise that absolutely all language is propaganda in one way or another right? But so what? What's the big deal?

Good question, What is the big deal?

Why is it that folks who express an opinion or offer a perspective that doesn't toe the "Moore is a big fat lair" line gets called names, has thier cognitive mental faculties questioned, and falsely accused of downplaying or ignoring facts. Aside from this occassional belittlement and bullying, many of Moore's critics seem to be able to do is repeat their opinions over and over and over, perhaps with the secret hope that they will magically become irrefutable fact. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

So what...People disagree...what is the big deal with that?

Anyway, I've come to the conclusion it is not a big deal. Folks can disagree with Moore all they want. They can interpret the facts and come to the conclusion that he is a deciever or a liar or whatever. They cant, however, force me agree, no matter how low they sink, how many times they repeat their opinion, or how many times they recycle the same interpretation of the facts.

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say the walk-out had to be filmed in two takes. I can't imagine Heston actually coming back for a second take after Moore insistent requests for an apology. When Heston got up, he walks towards the cameraman. He approaches the cameraman, then the film cuts to a scene of Heston walking away from the cameraman. To me, it just looked like Heston got up and walked out, going right by the cameraman in the process. The footage of him going by the cameraman may have been too "close-up" to use. Then we see Heston walking away. To my admittedly untrained eye, it looks like Heston just got up and walked out and the camera followed him all the way. The part where he actually passes the camera may have been cut because he was too close for a clear shot, or the camera may have actually had to be moved for him to pass, which would have given us footage of the floor, ceiling or wall. I also have no idea what you are talking about in regards to the optical sound tracks. I would really like better explanations of these points so that I can understand them better.

That's the thing of it: It had to be filmed in two takes, because there's a series of cuts. Dry cuts. Not fades, tracks or pans, but dry cuts. Goddardian Jump Cuts, for those familiar with cinematography. A film reference is the closing moments of the shoot-out in Taxi Driver, or many conversational dialogues.

Well, you can't see another camera. There's only one camera filming. All in one take, Heston walking away was filmed by a camera. If a second camera had been filming Moore standing out and badgering the old man with the photo, we'd see the camera. So, the footage we see of Moore standing there and badgering Heston is second-take. In short, there's no footage that positively identifies Moore calling out to him like that, visually. The multi-take thing is mainly relative to the walking out itself. The interview itself was filmed with two cameras (remember though, the walk-out couldn't have been filmed with two, we'd have seen the other) and that's evident from the numerous what appear to be axial cuts (though far less masterful than the original axial cut, Michael Moore is no Akira Kurosawa, not by any stretch) throughout. Through those cuts we're given view of a clock, and given that the interview is presumed filmed in one take (most likely, considering everything) we can safely assume then, that 3/4 of that interview is not in the film. It's all interview, by what we can see of the clock. So, what did Heston say? Considering what Moore has seen fit to omit from Heston's speeches in the past, I'm willing to wager a whole hell of a lot. Enough to make Moore look like a complete asshole, moron, or some combination thereof. That's conjecture though. What we do know is that there's 20+minutes of interview, and less than 4:30 of it is in the film. A good question is: Why?

Even better, why use two cameras in an interview where a single camera filming in 16:9 HD will be able to capture the whole interview and all participants? Why have multiple cameras? There's no need.

Anyway, back to the multi-take. So Moore is calling out to Heston. Or is he? Well, this is where the OS (Optical Soundtrack) comes in. Optical Sountracks are magnetic recordings burned right onto the edges of a film strip. The film is in itself a complete unit, sound and video. Videotape works this way too. All sound film and tape has worked this way since sound was workable on the camera (Bless you, Greg Tolland, for making it worth while). Well, the soundtrack fits the second-take. Since at this point it's obvious and proven that two takes were used on the walk-out, the fact is, a staged scene will never be the exact same as the original, and so we can conclude that the second optical sound track is used. So, all sound of Moore calling out, yelling to Heston, pleading the whole picture thing, that's all from a staged scene. If we drop staged scenes, and only go with the first OS (which may be used to one degree or another, giving Moore the excuse that it was lost on the cutting room floor) the scene would in all likelyhood lose all, or nearly all, of its impact. That too is conjecture, about how it would affect it, but that it would be changed in some way is fact.

What does this whole mess do? It shows how anti-documentarian Moore is.

Opinionated or not. I wouldn't care if he was plugging Michael Badnarik, awbansunset.com, and the Libertarians, if he was doing this...Hell, if he was doing it in the name of those things, which I am aligned with, I'd probably be even more pissed. Not that these causes need the help of creative editing or hoodwinking, either. Though their absolute opponents seem to need it quite a bit.

Also, if Moore was repeatedly being a jack-ass to Heston, pestering him about questions he'd answered properly, it wouldn't be behavior he hasn't repeated, namely with Bill O'Reilly, whom he wasn't satisfied with "I would sacrifice myself to secure Fallujah" enough to drop the issue.

[Davros]

I think you give Heston way too much credit Oblivion - and Moore too little.

Just my take [img]smile.gif[/img] .