For over a decade documentaries have evolved from informative texts to tools of persuasion, as a result of the ever-changing cultural contexts and societal ideologies (Merin, n.d.). In 1936, John Grierson coined the term ‘documentary’, since then both the type of film as well as the practice of making documentaries have broadened into endless sub-genres such as advocacy documentaries and biographical documentaries. Regardless of the myriad forms of the genre, a great number of documentaries are based around the narratives of depicting “untold [truths and giving] voice to the voiceless” (Rushdie, 1987); this is done to manoeuvre audiences to persuade them to support the filmmaker’s cause. Just by scanning the list of highest grossing feature length documentaries, it can be observed that, two of the top ten grossing documentaries of all time are Michael Moore films. These include ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ (2004), which grossed nearly $120,000,000 at the box office and ‘Sicko’ (2007) which almost earned $25,000,000 to date (Box Office Mojo, n.d.). His other films ‘Bowling for Columbine’ (2002), ‘Capitalism: A Love Story’ (2009) and ‘Roger & Me’ (1989) are number 11, 15 and 24 respectively. The level of success which Moore has achieved is unprecedented; it is also, rather astounding considering Michael Moore is a filmmaker who “inspires and invites criticism” actively (Dalton, 2012). Michael Moore, one of the most controversial and successful filmmakers of our time wittingly uses a multitude of cinematic approaches to manipulate his audiences in his unique and clever way. Michael Moore’s characteristic style of filmmaking provokes questions about “what’s ethical in documentary film by destabilizing our expectations of the genre” (Borden, 2007... ... middle of paper ... ... reason for this is the majority of audiences want an escape through the media. Moreover, it could be argued that the entertainment of Moore’s documentaries detract from the social and political messages. Documentaries are considered to be part of the culture industry. Moore’s documentaries can be considered “sentimental”, used to entertain the audience. A reason why Moore’s documentaries are more popular because they entertain the audiences as well as sending a message. I would argue that by entertaining his audiences he is helping to create action, may it be through contradicting his views or promoting them on social media. Throughout his twenty-five year career as a documentary filmmaker, Michael Moore has not been known to present a view that is completely balanced and unbiased. Instead, he has been frequently criticised for oversimplifying multifaceted topics.
But Moore's movie isn't just an anti-war movie. Part of the movie is an attempt to question and expose the political images being projected. This starts off with a dreamy sequence of Al Gore celebrating victory in Florida that, Moore says, was manipulated by Fox television into a Bush vict...
The diverse perspectives displayed by Oliver Stone in JFK are implemented to hinder blind following from lack of knowledge. The facts uncovered in Stone’s film work towards a common goal— a conspiracy taking place. By emphasizing this point, he provided another believable option. Although the surroundedness of bandwagon advertising and peer pressure may never cease, blind following from ignorance is severable.
In conclusion, many people may view Michael Moore as being uneducated and just ranting about his dislikes; however, he writes about what most of us believe and do not admit out loud. The purpose of any piece of information is to inform the public. Michael Moore effectively informs the reader about America’s poor education system, why and who to blame for this unfortunate truth, and lastly what actions can be done.
Many responders would believe that this movie is a misleading act based on Mike Moore’s self-promotion. When looking beneath the surface however, we can see that the film is trying to say something about America, even though there is no clear answer to the question being asked. This is why the film is a post-structural text. There is more than one answer and texts are interpreted depending on the responder’s context. It is not a documentary however because a documentary is a discussion based on evidence for and against. Although Bowling for Columbine provides facts, it is biased. Mike Moore presents a film that is dialogical in nature. He arranges questions and scenes in the film to get the answer or response that he wants. Also, the camera used is analogous to Moore’s own gun. He targets certain people and appears on the scene so as to make himself seem bigger. His camera is also used to ‘shoot’ people with questions that he already knows the answer to. This happens to people such as the bank employees and youths Bent and BJ and this is why responders may think the film is a reason for self-promotion.
...vernment that led them into such a crisis. In stating that this movie is a valuable piece of our cultural history, it is not to say that this film should be taken as a historical piece only. There is a danger in relying on material culture for historical knowledge. This danger exists in the fact that during the course of years, creative intentions become lost, and only the product remains. To rely on this film for historical knowledge, rather than cultural information, would be gravely wrong. This is because this film was not made to be historically informative, and centuries from now, society may not know that Kubrick's suggestive names, distortion of actual history, and cultural bias were simply vehicles used to convey an opinion. So these same vehicles that make this film effective as a societal criticism make it inaccurate as a source for historical knowledge.
Among many theorists such as Brain L. Ott, the V for Vendetta movie is seen as an “allegory for life in George W. Bush’s America” (Ott 2). Because of this, Alan Moore “had his name removed from the credits” (Xenakis 135). But just because
Moore is naturally a very opinionated individual and has no problem with expressing his beliefs regardless of whether he offends those around him; in fact, he seems to take some pleasure in directly challenging them. Though Moore is able to depict his strongly held views by narrating the film, viewers who do not agree with his concepts could be quickly and easily turned off to the film due to Moore’s blatant defamation of any ideas that contradict with his.
Michael Moore used comical tactics as a way to appeal to his audience in this piece of literature. Michael Moore’s argument is that capitalism is destroying the nation’s economy rather than helping to develop it. The poor are suffering, while the richer are getting richer. The arguments that Moore used may not be considered tangible by all, but he definitely did have the evidence to support his argument. Michael Moore purpose was to expose this ground breaking issue of the dominance of corporate America through video. He used the web source as a source to get his message across because he knew the internet would be accessible to many people. Moore in this film used the different elements of reasoning to identify the message he was sending to his audience.
She flawlessly uses an abundance of rhetorical strategies, propaganda, influential language and diction to enforce her ideas and seem credible. A primary example of this is her repetitive use of allusions. Throughout her film, she commonly alludes to moments in American history with shocking and vulgar images in attempts to strike the audience's sense of emotion or pathos. This is very effective because propagandas have a tendency to catch ones focus from intended analysis, to a more hazy view where we are highly influenced by controversial concepts. Although this is highly effective, it should not be present in a documentary. An appropriate documentary would have included less disturbing imagery and vulgarities. Consequently, her documentary is without a doubt inappropriate as Garbus exploits the 9/11 era to capture her audiences focus, disregarding the severity of the topic. However, Garbus’ use of vulgarities was effective and thus allowed her ideas to seem
Movies are everywhere. They are a part of everyone’s life. Think about it, how many movies do you
In 2002 Michael Moore’s film “Bowling for Columbine” won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, in my opinion I do not believe that this movie is a documentary or truth. Bowling for Columbine is FICTION! The movie makes its points by easily deceiving and misleading the viewer. Moore uses deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.
During this course, I had the opportunity to watch several documentaries that enlightened men on different perspectives of cultural diversity. These documentaries contained a variety of different methods used to examine several cultural diversity issues within America. Racism, sexism, ageism, and social class were the main topics that were examined in these videos and documentaries. As part of the process, researchers creatively designed experiments that uncovered how people instinctively respond when it is not apparent that they are being watched. Reports such as these must be carefully crafted and presented in an objective manner. If critical steps are overlooked, this kind of research tactic can easily been interpreted as intrusive, dishonest, bias, or unethical. That might ultimately defeat the purpose and distract the viewer from understanding, and that may become counter-productive to the message the researcher is attempting to convey. All documentaries presented were necessary for us to gain a true consideration of the cultural diversity issues this country faces. Some documentaries contained the element of surprise by using hidden camera tactics. It is no secret that cameras have a tendency to change individuals’ attitudes, if they are conscious of the fact that they are being filmed. Though all of the video and documentaries were impactful, the two documentaries that had the most impact on my learning were:
In Michael Moore 's Stupid White Men, he discusses many world and governmental issues facing America. He focuses on the corruption that has befallen the nation due to the Bush Administration. He forcefully gets his point across without worriment of opposing opinions. Moore focuses greatly upon political, environmental, economic and social issues due the Bush administration, which he believes to be the cause of many of today 's national issues. Moore’s Stupid White Men focuses on the damages done by the Bush Administration and its impact on national dilemmas. Although Moore 's premises on the topic is tipped in a negative favor, he provides reasonable points to aid in his argument to encourage an agreeable response.
On April 10, 2014, we went on a field trip to visit a museum in San Francisco. I have mix up emotions while we were traveling. I was excited to see different work of arts that I just used to see only in the books. We sat on a bus for two hours while I was making friend with the guy sitting next to me. We talked so many random things about our likes, the school, our family and the possible things that we would see in the museum. We exchanged ideas about certain work of arts that interest each of us.
1. Nichols, Bill. ‘Why are Ethical Issues Central to Documentary Filmmaking?’ Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2001, p1-20