OT: Ken Burns - The War

I agree in principle Jude to what you're saying about news, and I of course can only speak of myself, but I actually work in news. Trust me when I say that things like you mentioned are considerations that I examine on a daily basis. It may be impossible to remove all bias or point of view from news story (because we are all the sum of our personal experiences), but what people like myself and others in this business strive for is a sense of balance.

Having said that, I notice when I've cruised "news" sites on the internet, that even innocuous stories involving President Bush might contain a picture of him with a ridiculous look on his face. It's obvious that the picture was taken from a video and the editor could have chosen any frame to stop on for the pic, but chose one that made him look like an idiot.

Sometimes this kind of bias is intentional, sometimes it's unintentional, but the only way to prevent it is to have others watching the same things and offering up alternative perspectives.

Andy

a good documentary on Darwin's Origin of the Species would be to show his research and observations without concluding that God doesn't exist

it should be possible for someone to think that God created the universe through an evolutionary process or that the species emerged from the primordial scum

I agree with balanced and the presentation of two or more points of view

otherwise, yeah, there are always going to be points of view and preferences in story telling and what facts are emphasized, etc.

> a good documentary on Darwin's Origin of the Species would be to show his research and
> observations without concluding that God doesn't exist

The filmmaker has no such responsibility. You're only saying it because you believe in the existence of God. If a filmmaker believes in making a documentary that strives to prove that the existence of God is unprovable, it is his/her choice.

By all means, make a video that attempts to scientifically prove the existence of God, if that's what you believe. But by saying "A good documentary doesn't conclude by saying God doesn't exist", you're saying only Christian documentary filmmakers are valid. And that's crap.

Attempts at scientific proof of God's existence tend to make a lot of unscientific assumptions, anyway. If God really is God -- by definition a supernatural force that can supercede any logical and metaphysical rule -- how can the feebleness of human logic explain Him/Her?


www.derekmok.com

I prefer to read a book, or to watch a documentary with a known bias. I want to know where the writer or producer is coming from. I don't want them representing the "other" side's point of view with straw men arguments. It's the other side's job to put their POV forward.

[richarddawkins.net] is a very good place for the discussion about the beginnings of the universe and evolution, and I suggest a move over there if you want to continue such discussions.

Graeme

[www.nattress.com] - Plugins for FCP-X

With all due respect, Graeme, but I'm staying within the definition of what makes a good documentary.

I'm not discussing religious belief here. I'm not advocating that in a documentary on Darwin's Origin of the Species that the documentarian should present the Creationist belief. What does that have to do with Darwin's research?

In fact, for years Darwin didn't dare publish his research. His wife didn't like the idea that her husband was descended from an ape.

Personally I agree with Bob Dylan when he sang, "you are who you say you are." LOL

But I believe in the freedom of expression.

Derek is worried that a documentary about Darwin's Origin of the Species would be assinged to a Creationist filmmaker. That's just not going to happen. In fact, such a documentary would never be approved for public education.

But I believe that a person of faith can produce an unbiased documentary about Darwin, and it would be wrong to present the belief in the existence of God in such a documentary. And that's my point about what constitutes a good documentary.

Your point is well taken, therefore, a documentary about Darwin's Origin of the Species shouldn't include interviews with Creationists. I agree whole-heartedly. It would be silly :-)

And I don't think that it's appropriate to make a documentary proving the existence of God. There are Scriptures that deal with that; but if somebody wishes to do so, then of course such a documentary could take issue with Darwin's research and present an opposing view, but then again it may not. It's up to the person making the documentary.

In such a documentary, Darwin's research may or may not play a role. It would be difficult to make a documentary about the existence of God, because the subject of the documentary would be people's faith or lack it thereof. The existence of God deals with spiritual matters. Science doesn't recognize the spiritual realm. So it would be difficult to make a scientific documentary; but a documentary about the phenomenon of faith would be still possible.

However, a documentary about Darwin's Origin of the Species doesn't have to deal with faith, and it therefore should not deal with the issue of the existence of God.

But you would have to include that his conclusion was that there was no God, since it was a major part of the struggle for him, having been a priest himself. In fact the reason that he didn't release the work for so long was because it went against his faith - and contradicted the theories in 'Theology of Species' (which is obvious in his title.)

He only released the work at all because a young colleague was on the verge of releasing very similar research, and this would guzump his years of effort spying on finches on tropical islands.

So God has to come into it, and his conclusion is inevitably tied up with that, so surely it would be a disservice to the facts to try and leave the existence, or not, of God out of it? That is, after all, what the major impact of the research was. No one really cared what kind of beaks finches had.

I have no reason to back up my claim, but I don't agree with you, Jude. LOL

I have no reason to care about this but filmman, every time you use that "LOL" it makes everything you say seem like you only half mean it and that you're hedging.
If you really want to get in an argument about religion or objectivity, have the canisters (film?) to say it straight out and not undercut your, to my mind at least, inconclusive case for limits to the form of documentary and what could and couldn't be done with in the genre.
How about we draw this argument to a close or take it somewhere else if it's not going to drift back to something vaguely related to editing. And how about you give those two keys on your keyboard a break. I'll just assume that whenever you contribute here that you are laughing out loud.

ak
Sleeplings, AWAKE!

> Derek is worried that a documentary about Darwin's Origin of the Species would be assinged
> to a Creationist filmmaker.

You're twisting my meaning. I am saying that it is a filmmaker's right to argue any point of view in a documentary. A German neo-Nazist has the right to make a film arguing that the Holocaust never existed. And any other filmmaker has the right to make a documentary to rebutt that claim. You can't censor a fringe view just because it's considered wrong even by an overwhelming majority -- "The earth is round" was one hell of a fringe view as well.

I'd be interested in watching a documentary arguing for Intelligent Design, even though I am an atheist. Why? Because what does it hurt? And who knows, maybe I'll see something I find useful, interesting, or true.

To quote The West Wing:

"Making sure The National Enquirer can write whatever it wants is the only way we can make sure The New York Times can write what it wants."

The way to education is pluralism, not monism. You have to allow all points of view whether you agree with them or not (instead of dismissing fringe points of view, for example, as "not a documentary".

Well, we're not here to argue ideologies; we're here to argue the role of the filmmaker. A filmmaker can't be self-censoring: "Oh, this topic is too incendiary". Nor should an editor be -- there'll be enough producers, clients, financiers and executives trying to homogenize the work. As in acting, you have to go too far, then you decide how much to pull back. Otherwise, you will never achieve the potential of your material.


www.derekmok.com

Interesting thread guys. I am a documentary editor by profession as well.

I think that some of this debate about "what a documentary is" can be cleared up by realizing that the term "documentary" is a very broad container-word to begin with. Almost all of you are right in your definitions. Some words are like that. "Automobile" is a container-word. Both a solar-racer and a Hummer are "automobiles".

The problem here is the English language. A more objective doc has to have a more nuanced name versus a propaganda doc. But they are both docs. And its OK to personally prefer one over the other. But you cant exclude all of the different kinds from the very broad term of "documentary".

I'm editing a series sponsored by the ACLU right now. These are position-piece docs. They have an agenda but they don't lie either. And there is a whole legit sub-category fore this kind of doc in our society.

And as far as Ken Burns' docs being too "slow", I like to think about which docs will survive and still "play" 20 years from now. Which will be "timeless"? I just watched "The West" which was produced over 10 years ago in the lineage and style of Ken Burns and directed by Stephen Ives. I think these carefully made docs will way outlast the "flash in the pan" stuff.

- Christopher S. Johnson

You finally made some good points, Derek. i generally agree with your point of view regarding filmmaking. Sometimes i don't agree with your point of view, but that's okay; we're individuals.

<"A filmmaker can't be self-censoring">

Great point.

But I only picked the Darwin documentary as a hypothetical...

I realize that there are people here that know a lot more about Darwin than I do. Jude is one of them. I had to concede to Jude about that.

You win some and you lose some.

We're all interested in filmmaking and this thread has been very interesting. I think the documentary deserves an open discussion such as this.

Quote

Some words are like that. "Automobile" is a container-word. Both a solar-racer and a Hummer are "automobiles". The problem here is the English language.

In that case, I think someone should make a documentary about the English language.

:-)

Andy

"I prefer to read a book, or to watch a documentary with a known bias."

-Couln't agree more.
Everyone has a point of view nomatter how much they pretend not to.
Thats why I detest this politically correct BS we have to deal with all the time,
where the moviemaker or news station pretend to respect the other side of the story in some vain pthetic attempt to seem objective.

I kinda like FOX news for this reason. They constantly lie, they cheat, distort the truth and tell their opponents to go to hell, but at least they dont pretend to be truthful
(you'd have to be intellectually challenged not to realize this about FOX).
I dont agree with a word they say, but at least you know where they stand.
The same goes for Michael Moore, and it definately makes it more interesting and more sincere [in a twisted sort of way].

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

Now, I have to say, even though I tend to work on "position-piece" docs that have an agenda, I also plainly acknowledge the need for news programs that at least attempt to act as a dispassionate reportage of a topic, giving true compassion to all of the parties involved.

No, perfection is not possible, but the public benefits from the attempt to get as close as one can in informative news and educational pieces. This is why the News and Editorial sections of the newspaper and TV news are so clearly marked. Its not perfect, but what is?

Believe me, it is not an "either/or" argument here. There is room in this town for all of these types of docs. Think of it more a a spectrum of intent, with pure propaganda on one end and pure equanimity and objectivity on the other. Most docs/news fit somewhere in between the two. And I maintain that it is still helpful to draw a line between the two, even if it is sticky and flawed at the point where it is drawn.

Just because the issue is murky near the center of the spectrum doesnt mean that the pieces on the ends are "the same thing".

By the way, I just read some news accounts of the bullying tactics of the groups against Ken Burns. Its embarrassing. Look, I voted for a Hispanic for mayor, I will probably vote for a Hispanic for president, I was a minority-white in a High School that had a 75% Hispanic population, and I am a political liberal. But I fail to see where Ken Burns was elected by the public to be a representative for all of us.

My understanding is that he is telling about the war through the narrow perspective of only four towns in the USA. That's completely legitimate!

I would LOVE to see a doc about Hispanics in WWII. Someone should make it and shut up about Ken Burns not representing someone properly in such a HUGE topic. The whining and victim thing is embarrassing. Especially when there are REAL injustices to be dealt with out there in the world (like cops shooting rubber bullets at an innocent crowd).

- Christopher S. Johnson

- Christopher S. Johnson

John Pilger's last doco about Palestine was an interesting case study. Though overtly anti occupation, the filmakers supported their argument by interviewing Israeli West Bank/Gaza refuseniks. Thus giving the other sides POV that actually coincides with the filmakers. Pilger also found an Israeli man whose daughter had been blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber, but nonetheless considered his daughters killer as much a victim of the occupation as his daughter. So in a sense he (pilger) was albe to have his cake and eat it too.
Poweful filmaking and a nuanced approach to giving the "other" side its POV.
I suspect a genuinely balanced doco would be rather dull.
Who's Ken Burns anyway?

Quote

Who's Ken Burns anyway?

Ken Burns: [en.wikipedia.org]

'His' Effect: [en.wikipedia.org]



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

I saw a doco like the Palestine one about the war with the Japanese (I don't recall which war, I'm a bit slack on war history) - both sides were interviewed about specific battles, and the pressures that they were both under were examined. Lovely stuff - very balanced, but there was still a viewpoint being pushed. The idea that the people in the war are not really to blame, that the War itself creates situations from which the players can't escape, often unless they choose death.

So even though Pilger gave equal time and concern to both sides in the Palestine doco, I'll bet the overrriding message that he was trying to give was in that sentence you gave - "considered his daughters killer as much a victim of the occupation as his daughter."

Its funny, I think THOUSANDS of films had panning pf photos before Ken Burns did it. Oh well.

[Ken Burns: [en.wikipedia.org]

'His' Effect: [en.wikipedia.org]

" The zooming and panning across photographs gives the feeling of motion, and keeps the viewer visually entertained."

Stupid entry. As though panning and zooming were really only an "effect." Photomotion's main purpose is to help tell stories, not to transition between photos. Carefully plotted zooms into a person's eyes, or equally careful pull-outs to reveal person in environment, are powerful storytelling tools.

[I think THOUSANDS of films had panning pf photos before Ken Burns did it.]

Of course. Frame Shop simply did it better than most, often improving on Ken's layouts and shooting alternatives too. And not only on Ken's work-- Ed Joyce and Ed Searles' names appear in NOVA, American Experience, Frontline, independent docs of all kinds. World class photo animators going back decades.

- 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

in TV, Balance sells (advertising space)

at the Movies, Bias sells.


an a Library i a collection of Documents.
it is not a "documentary"