OT: Ken Burns - The War

Without stepping in to a messy social debate, and soley from a documentary protocol perspective, what thoughts are out there about the attention Ken Burns' has received about The War piece lacking treatment of the war experiences of at least one segement of the population that was there?

Does a documentary have the responsibility to be all inclusive of available data or can it be selective in using just the best material, and is it then really a documentary?

Depends. Were other ethnic groups focused on? Did it go into details about black troops? Indian code talkers? Depends on their importance in the war. The Navajo Code Talkers, for example, were brought in because their language was so unique, that the Japanese couldn't decipher it. If there were a group of people who had an impact, yes. Like Italian internment...Japanese Internment. But if they just wanted to say "hispanics made up x% of the fighting force" then I'd call that stupid. Then you'd have to say "the Irish x%, italians x%..." and so on.

This might be political correctness gone amok.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

> Does a documentary have the responsibility to be all inclusive of available data or can it be
> selective in using just the best material, and is it then really a documentary?

No, yes, and yes.

Filmmakers are free to make a documentary like Fahrenheit 9/11, which does not attempt to get George W. Bush's side of the story. The Right Wing is also free to make a rebuttal in the form of Fahrenhype 9/11.

"Documentaries" are not "documents". They are not historical accounts. Film is a form that favours emotional responses, not objective analysis. And no work of filmmaking or writing could ever possibly be "all-inclusive". If you're writing a book on World War II, would it make sense to try to encompass all the viewpoints of Russia, Germany, Britain, the U.S., Mexico, Argentina, Japan, China, Indochina, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Iceland and Australia? How about every planet in the galaxy?

However, you could argue that a good documentary wouldn't be entirely one-sided. This is why Bowling for Columbine is a vastly superior film and documentary than Fahrenheit 9/11. It allowed for Charlton Heston to at least appear in the film, even if Michael Moore's intent is to make fun of him. Shut Up and Sing used streeters of the protestors who attacked The Dixie Chicks for Natalie Maines' comments, even if the filmmaker didn't agree with the protestors. It rounds out the argument better.


www.derekmok.com

And documentary is always pushing a particular viewpoint. It has no requirement to give fair voice to both sides. That's journalism. At least here in Australia, where there is a specific code that I know of. Not sure about the rest of the world.

.....and so it seems every project has an editor in chief who has the final say; aka the client ( paying customer). I agree with you all that a piece has no obligation to be all inclusive.

Thanks for the comments.
Frank

I disagree. I think Shane had the better perspective. One shouldn't call a movie a documentary if it's obviously biased, like the Michael Moore attack on George Bush and the Conservatives.

Come to think of it, the Cannes jury thought of the movie as fiction also, because they gave it the Palm d'Or for its "artistic" merits. LOL

> Come to think of it, the Cannes jury thought of the movie as fiction also, because they gave
> it the Palm d'Or for its "artistic" merits. LOL

The Palme d'Or makes no such distinction. Any competing film can win.

Triumph of the Will is also a documentary. So is This Film Is Not Yet Rated (though not a very good one). So is One Day in September. So is An Inconvenient Truth. Perspective bias has nothing to do with generic definition.

> One shouldn't call a movie a documentary if it's obviously biased.

All filmmaking is biased. So are journalism, historical writing and any commentary of any kind. You want to avoid offending anybody, you want to avoid tackling any subject that's controversial, go home and suck your thumb rather than make anything on communicative media. Some people find a woman in public without a veil on offensive. You gonna cater to them?


www.derekmok.com

"One shouldn't call a movie a documentary if it's obviously biased"

Exactly.

How can those clowns that made "The Sorrow and the Pity" or "Shoah" call those things documentaries? They didn't even TRY to see the Holocaust through the eyes of the hardworking Germans!

Or "Titicut Follies"? Did they even ask the guards how they felt? Or what those crazy people had done to DESERVE the daily ritual punishment?

Or that one about Jeffrey Dahmer. Did the "film makers" even TASTE a teenage boy to find out WHY Dahmer thought they were so delicious?

I see what you mean!

there's propaganda

there's satire

there's news

there's entertainment

etc.

but documentary is documentary

what would education be like if there were no documentaries?

There are certain requirements and definitions that should be met.

Quote
filmman
there's propaganda
there's satire
there's news
there's entertainment
etc.
but documentary is documentary
what would education be like if there were no documentaries?
There are certain requirements and definitions that should be met.

WTF?
And your point is?
All media is mediated in some way by the people making it. All documentaries operate from a point of view. Bad ones skew the presentation of facts to make their point of view seem more logical than it is. Bad ones can also waffle and try to please everyone and end up pleasing or educating no one.
If it's not a documentary because it is obviously biased then what are the criteria for judging the level of obviousness?

One of the reasons Documentary as a form had such a long time in the wilderness of public opinion was because the most rigorous forms of doc were asking people to analyze the information that was being presented. It's only in the last decade or so, concurrent with the birth of the digital camera, that the form has been blown wide open. Anytime that happens there is always going to be old guard elements decrying the cheapening of the form while everyone else just gets on with it. arghh!

ak
Sleeplings, AWAKE!

"There are certain requirements and definitions that should be met."

Like what? Objectivity? I don't think so.

Many great documentaries were done purely for propaganda purposes. They may be great for reasons that wouldn't have occured to the film maker at the time but what difference does that make to us, now?

The only rule I would stick to is to not script the procedings or try to get people to do something they otherwise wouldn't. And that's just me. Beyond that- anything goes as far as I'm concerned.

The best documentary I've seen in a long time, "Touching the Void" has tons of re-enactments. Are you gonna tell me that wasn't great or wasn't a documentary? I wouldn't have made it that way but I'm glad Kevin MacDonald did.

There are no documentary police.

I can't think of a single documentary that isn't pushing a particular point of view. After all, it's like a filmic essay, and what's the reason for an essay if not to make a point?

Even Attenborough's 'Life on Earth' series has a viewpoint. That the world is a wonderful, beautiful and fascinating place. Another doco maker could equally express the opinion that the world is a sad, bitter and painful place. Both opinions are valid, as they are opinions.

Whether we agree with the opinions or not does not decide if they are documentaries.

Now now Tim - I'm not sure sarcasm comes across well in text...


And Vic, you should know better than to define borders

Quote

there's propaganda

there's satire

there's news

there's entertainment

etc.

but documentary is documentary

What about:

propaganda documentaries (like "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

satirical documentaries (like "Fahrenheit 9/11"

news documentaries (like BBC's "Panorama"

and documentaries purely for entertainment? (like "What would happen if Filmman ate my script!"


Seriously though; a film/video documentary is exactly that - something which "documents" an issue, event, persons life, etc. Regardless of the style or spin you put on it.

It also doesn't matter 1 iota what side you look at - its about capturing a portion of reality - if you think that offering a balanced view is necessary in order to be deemed documentary then you are asking for the impossible.

But yes I think we can all agree that most docs have become "a style of presentation" or pure entertainment rather than any reliable source of history.

Ben



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

I agree with that. Ben. Also Jude and others here make the same point, that documentaries have changed, and the definition is being expanded now that we're in the digital camera age, and thanks to Final Cut Pro, now everybody has final cut. LOL

And I believe in creative freedom and free speech and all that. Where would I be if that weren't so :-) I'm lucky that I'm an independent filmmaker; I don't work for anybody that tells me what is biased and what isn't biased.

It's just that I don't consider a propaganda movie a documentary just because it attacks President Bush or some Conservative issue.

And because I like to define the documentary a little more strictly doesn't mean that I don't believe in freedom of expression.

I didn't bring up Michael Moore into the conversation either. I don't think his movie attacking President Bush was a documentary. The movie was based on total lies. If it were true, Michael Moore would've been President. LOL

That's what I told the French customs officer who saw my teeshirt with the Cannes Festival symbol on it. He said, "Oh, you been to Cannes.What do you think about Michael Moore winning the Palm d'Or; do you think it will be released in America now?"

I said, "Maybe he'll run for President." To his credit the French official was a little shocked.

Thank God he gave my passport back. I had visions of Papillon ... LOL

Quote
But yes I think we can all agree that most docs have become "a style of presentation" or pure entertainment rather than any reliable source of history.

I'm curious. How have Docs changed there style of presentation? What are the difference between those of today and yesterday. I don't see much difference. Are the great CBS docs with Ed Murrow such as "Harvest of Shame" any different than what one sees on Frontline today? Are Nature docs that different today then what Disney did with the "True Life Adventure" films of the early 50s?

I guess we can say the best Docs today are a presented in a more entertaining style than yesterday but I sure don't see it. Better sound, graphics, yes. Photography? No. Storytelling? No. Good stores to tell? No. The best docs like the best anything are timeless and the moment you make that first cut, you got a point of view.

Michael Horton
-------------------

I guess I always thought of a documentary like I do a thesis. You begin with an argument, and then you use facts to support your argument. Some filmmakers do this better than others.

Bad documentaries mix fiction into their argument and pass it off as fact. Good docs don't, but still their aim is to win you over to their argument. But I believe that great documentaries can and should show both sides (if there is more than one side) so that the viewer sees the subject from a different angle and sparks or renews interest enough that they attempt to learn more.

Jude said, "I can't think of a single documentary that isn't pushing a particular point of view."

For a while I couldn't either, but then I remember that I've seen several. Mostly on the history channel. I don't really remember names, but there was a great one on the Apocrypha which aired around the time the Da Vinci code was a best seller. They interviewed religious and secular scholars who debated the validity or relevance of the books that were not included in the bible. It was facinating, and wasn't pushing one camp over another, but rather seeked to interest people in a subject that very few people know much about.

Then there are docs like Murderball which have a point of view, but there aren't really 2 sides to the story. Just the point of view of what life is like for wheelchair rugby players.

Andy

Quote

I guess I always thought of a documentary like I do a thesis.

Thats a nice way of doing a confrontational issues - however its definately not a necessity to be labelled a documentary.

There is no need to argue anything either - a view on the life and times of our grandparents for instance would not need an argument. Take a simple interviews and back up archive footage and/or photos and/or re-enactments.


Ben



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

[There are no documentary police.]

Oh, yes. There are. They are in the room.

- Loren
Today's FCP 4 / 5 keytip:
Preview unrendered effects with Option-P or Option-Backslash!

The FCP KeyGuide?: your power placemat.
Now available at KeyGuide Central.
www.neotrondesign.com

MR MILLER!

STEP - AWAY - FROM - THE KEYBOARD!

PUT - YOUR - HANDS - ON - YOUR HEAD - AND - IN - TER - LOCK - YOUR - FINGERS...



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

As Wikipedia describes fruit and vegtables in culinary terms used to serve the purpose and needs of the marketplace, so is the term documentary used to meet the many needs in it's marketplace.

So I offer that a library is a documentary; in that within maybe only a library supports the most viewpoints, makes the most arguments (thesis), aligns to no agenda (except maybe U.S.A) and is accountable to no one. The Internet is perhaps the the most powerful documentary vehicle.

Frank

Quote

So I offer that a library is a documentary; in that within maybe only a library supports the most viewpoints, makes the most arguments (thesis), aligns to no agenda (except maybe U.S.A) and is accountable to no one. The Internet is perhaps the the most powerful documentary vehicle.

Hehe read that with Deep South Bible Belt Evangelist enthusiasm!

Can ay git an Amen?



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

"So I offer that a library is a documentary; in that within maybe only a library supports the most viewpoints, makes the most arguments (thesis), aligns to no agenda (except maybe U.S.A) and is accountable to no one. The Internet is perhaps the the most powerful documentary vehicle."

If you want to call a library a documentary, you are free to do so.

However, people who want to argue all sides of a given issue are better suited to policy manual and college textbook writing than the making of documentaries.

So my bad for getting too esoteric. Bottom line is Ken Burns changed his program because....

A. He wanted to keep his client(s).
B. He wanted to be true to his craft.
C. He has a strong social conscious.
D. He wants to be rich and famous.
E. ......
F. .......
G - Z.

A. He bowed to political pressure (political correctness) in order to still do stuff for PBS.

But we all do stuff like that to keep our jobs. I make changes to my projects, documentaries and narrative shows, because of network notes all the time. And many of them are stupid notes and make the show worse...but you do what you gotta do because you need the work.

His stuff is slow and boring anyway...I had no intention of watching it in the first place.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

This has to be the first time I've seen a thread that mentions Ken Burns in the subject (a very long thread at that) that did not refer to the dreaded "Ken Burns Effect".

Or is his method of defining "documentary" the new KB Effect?

Scott

> The Internet is perhaps the the most powerful documentary vehicle.

Webpages are just as biased as any book or film. Even if a certain medium doesn't offer commentary on facts, the act of creating that medium necessitates inclusion of certain information and exclusion of others. That, in itself, constitutes point of view.

And it's fine. Human beings couldn't function if they seriously tried to be objective. Information is meant to be subjective -- it is the researcher/student/audience's responsibility to get the full picture if s/he so desires. If you rely on only Fahrenheit 9/11 for your socio-economic-political picture of the Iraq War (or, conversely, only the Bush administration's proclamations), then you're opening yourself to being the target of propaganda. Boxer in Animal Farm, basically.

Despotism is based on belief. Dictatorship is based on submission. Both are monistic forms. Democracy is based on doubt, questioning, and pluralism.


www.derekmok.com

ideally, a documentary is the 'documenting' of a particular event or person without the intervention of a director or producer or script writer. how the 'documentary' is 'edited' is an entirely different story. the organic process of gathering the content of a documentary should not really be fettered by a driving point or political leaning bc when that happens, it's more along the lines of propaganda or, what our current status of 'local news' has become.

Quote

Democracy is based on doubt, questioning, and pluralism.

Democracy? I doubt and question its very existance!

By democracy I'm guessing you mean Elected (as if that matters does it Florida) Dictatorship?

Don't get me wrong - I like living under the false idea that any vote we cast will change the plans for the game that the world leaders and multinationals have for us. Mainly because I'm ever-so slightly misanthropic and wouldn't trust the judgement of more than 80% of the people I know to run the country/world/electric hand dryer/a pair of scissors...

So that basically means we are left with despots running the world under dictatorships and that some of us are lucky enough to be blind to and occassionally get the chance to vote in more of the same types that are vetted and groomed by the powers that be... *sigh* the big wheel keeps on turning.


Joy (or Ben as I was once known)



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

[STEP - AWAY - FROM - THE KEYBOARD! ]

LOL! Cute, Ben.

This is a fine thread, so I held back to think on it.

Jude wrote-

[And documentary is always pushing a particular viewpoint. It has no requirement to give fair voice to both sides. That's journalism. At least here in Australia, where there is a specific code that I know of. Not sure about the rest of the world.]

Having cut a few, I can agree about promoting viewpoint but I don't separate documentaries from journalism, which is daddy to all docs, going back to HOUSING PROBLEMS. All the best documentaries tell a story and take a stand, BUT -- although not obligated to unles they're produced by a network news division-- they employ observed reality, and voices from two or more sides to give the filmmakers' stand highest credence. Michael Moore got caught being unethical with his editing on F911, which relegates otherwise effective journalism to simple propaganda. "If only you hadn't varnished it!" the Keno twins always pout on Antiques Roashow. "It would have been worth so much more." Good journalism employs a world view and a sense of debate to persuade. I don't think you get that from Moore-- he produces entertaining position papers which however valid, usually preach to the choir.

Documentaries tell a story and often deliberately use it to persuade the viewer to a certain unpopular, misunderstood or neglected point of view. That's the highest art of propaganda-- which by itself is neither good nor bad, just intentional.

Intention was one thing that always bugged me about Fred Wiseman's verite observamentaries like HIGH SCHOOL and BASIC TRAINING. I couldn't detect much of a position. He was very good about capturing the reality, but he really wanted the viewer to fill in a position. I always felt it was a copout. Nevertheless, he's a great documentarian.

Burns is a gifted period documentarian who chooses his story path based on what he likes and understands-- and what he has available from archives. I haven't seen the WAR preview which ran recently in Brookline, but I hear he got flak about his story choices and point of view-- sort of a ho-hum Greatest Generation retread, I heard. But one columnist popped a string over JAZZ-- "What does a white boy with bangs know about jazz?" wrote one of them. Personally I think he should have stuck to Monk and Fats Waller! And as for WAR-- I wonder how it ends.

Ken's apex was CIVIL WAR, in my opinion. But his smaller pieces, like FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT and JACK JOHNSON, are equally informative and just as well researched. With photomotion beautifully shot and often enhanced at Frame Shop in Boston. But what he DID produce is good stuff in its own universe-- closely resembling ours -- and deserves its place.

- Loren
Today's FCP 4 / 5 keytip:
Preview unrendered effects with Option-P or Option-Backslash!

The FCP KeyGuide?: your power placemat.
Now available at KeyGuide Central.
www.neotrondesign.com

>>Fred Wiseman's verite observamentaries like HIGH SCHOOL and BASIC TRAINING. I couldn't detect much of a position. He was very good about capturing the reality, but he really wanted the viewer to fill in a position.<<

Man I love Wiseman's stuff. You can't buy it here, you know. I've been trying to find it for years, on and off. But .. no position? I would have thought it was a blatentley obvious position - especially 'Titicut Follies' and 'High School'. After all, he didn't show the quiet times where kids were happily enjoying each others company, or someone was helping a mental patient with something (not injected through a tube with cigarette ash added!). He showed people in trouble, stressed and uncomfortable, poorly treated, ignored, abused and humiliated. Does this not form a position on what institutions are about for Wiseman?

I'm still backing my opinion that everything has a viewpoint. Even News, which in this country legally has to be unbiased and allow right of reply as well as having a slew of other rules to contend with. Which picture of the Prime Minister does the editor who doesn't like him choose when cutting the story? The one where he looks dignified and in control, or the one where he looks slightly silly and awkward? It's a small leverage point, but it's still there.