The author of that webpage seems to excuse a lot of the (shall I be polite) mis-direction under the banner of art.
Example such as this:
Quote:
# Canada ammunition purchase. Hardy writes:
Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada." Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal.
Once again, Hardy fails to distinguish between regular film editing and "faking" (a word which "Canadian officials" have never used; for such a distortion, Moore would have been boiled alive by his critics). If Moore simply chose not to show how he revealed his identification to the salesperson, there is nothing fraudulent about that. He made no claims whatsoever in the film about the need to show or not show identification. His claim that it is possible to purchase ammunition in supermarkets is independent from that claim.
There IS something fraudulent about not showing the ID portion of the transaction if this film is being nominated for an Acadamy Award as a documentary.
In fact, if he does say that a question is not raised, then isn't the request for ID a question? So if Michael Moore is saying no questions were raised, then it is a bald faced lie to omit details of asking for id, period.
I don't see where documentaries should be partisan or take sides. In my opinion, a good documentary shows all aspects of the issue fairly and lets the viewer decide for himself where he sides on the issue.
If a film is slanted in one direction or another, that is propaganda.
Let's see what the definition of a documentary is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary
The salient definition here is:
Quote:
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Now on to propaganda http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=propaganda
Again, a salient definition:
Quote:
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
So given what you indicate above about the selective editing and what the writer at your link present, would you say "Bowling" is a Documentary or Propaganda.
I say it is probably closer to Propaganda than a Documentary.
Details such as explicity giving us time frames, details of transactions, or at the very least if you are not going to show the whole speach, let the view know with citations on the screen as the cuts of various speaches are shown.
So we differ, I believe that documentaries are not about the art, but about a fair presentation of ALL pertinent facts regarding an issue.
TB
