the new style of "documentaries"

[Ken Morgan]

Nor am I here to debate it or whether it is indeed a comedy or not. But I did recall him making a comment that contradicted your statement that Maher "never once said religulous was a documentary" and posted accordingly. He HAS said it on at least one occassion


I'm kinda getting the impression that man will cater to his audience, and say what he feels is right for them at the time.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

i watch bill maher's "religulous" recently. although i didn't agree with a lot of it, i did enjoy it as maher is usually at least funny (as opposed to michael moore's over-dramatic sentimentalism). in any case it should be pretty clear to the critical observer that it was creatively edited to support maher's opinions.

but it did get me thinking about the potential trend that moore has started. when i watch a documentary, i typically want information. the genre of film should, imo, be a document of a topic that generally leaves the viewer to draw their own conclusions, or should provide the viewer with footage that he cannot see personally. what we have with moore et al is a bunch of op-ed films characterized as documentary. now i don't have a problem with film being used for op-ed, i have a problem with renting a movie with the expection of at least a modicum of objectivity only to find subjective editing & presentation.

so what do you think? should op-ed be a designated subgenre of documentary? should non-fiction films even be used for editorializing? or am i the only one who cares?

jf

First we had the documentary.

Then we had the mockumentary.

Then come MTV and we had the rockumentary.

Now come the likes of Moore , Gore and Maher and we've reached the finalpoint in the dumbing-down evolution: The crockumentary.

The crockumentary is not a viable technique of filmmaking and should be banned.

 

[jarrod]

i don't care for banning stuff, but i love the term crockumentary.

jf