Fahrenheit 9/11

[BonBon85]

It's kind of impossible to avoid breaking #6 in fiction movies, depending on how you define superficial. I'm confused about #3 - can you set the camera down on something already at the location (i.e. a table)?

[Raikus]

It's kind of impossible to avoid breaking #6 in fiction movies, depending on how you define superficial. I'm confused about #3 - can you set the camera down on something already at the location (i.e. a table)?

Documentaries are supposed to be as non-fiction as possible. Hence rule #6. Basically, you're supplying a viewer with hard facts through interviews and other materials. Reinactments, etc. would be frowned upon because it gives the viewer a fictional view of a real event.

As far as #3 goes, I think it's basically meaning go to where your material is. Don't rent out a studio and have people come to you. Film them in as natural a setting as possible which would normally mean no interview rooms or lighting setup. Also, if the events are happening as they're filmed, have it filmed handheld only instead of locking down shots and using pans and zooms. It's to enhance the realism.

Of course this is all my interpretations based off the dogme rules and articles I've read in the past. I could be very wrong.

[Cecil]

Here's the guidelines for dogme:

yes but those are the dogme95 rules. im talking about something called "The Dogu Code of Conduct" which are rules only for documentaries

[Raikus]

Yeah, you're right. Those guidelines are so close to the ones in Filmmaker that I didn't even notice. I'll try to post those on here tonight when I get home.
------------------
The Dogu Code of Conduct
by Lars van Trier

1. All the locations in the film must be revealed (This is to be done by text being inserted in the image. This constitutes an exception of rule number five. All the text must be legible.).

2. The beginning of the film must outline the goals and ideas of the director (This must be shown to the film's "actors" and technicians before filming begins.).

3. The end of the film must consist of two minutes of free speaking time by the film's "victim." This "victim" alone shall advise regarding the content and must approve this part of the finished film. If there is no opposition by any of the collaborators, there will be no "victim" or "victims." To explain this, there will be text inserted at the end of the film.

4. All clips must be marked with six to twelve frames of black (Unless they are a clip in real time, that is a direct clip in a multi-camera filming situation.).

5. Manipulation of the sound and/or images must not take place. Filtering, creative lighting and/or optical effects are strictly forbidden.

6. The sound must never be produced exclusive of the original filming or vice versa. That is, extra soundtracks like music or dialogue must not be mixed in later.

7. Reconstruction of the concept or the directing of the actors is not acceptable. Adding elements as with scenography are forbidden.

8. All use of hidden cameras is forbidden.

9. There must never be used archived images or footage that has been produced for other programs.

[Jeremy Blackman]

In case you haven't notice, truth holds no value with Moore.

That site is not legit, and we proved its errors and exaggerations here. The site was created by an NRA lawyer. Seriously.

[godardian]

Too bad Icon productions pulled out. The two parties deserve each other. It's hard to decide who I think is more of a self-aggrandizing crackpot windbag, that chest-beating "staunch Republican" homophobe Mel Gibson or that self-promoting, social-ill-trivializing Michael Moore. It's hard to know which is the more ignoble foundation upon which to build your celebrity; an outmoded, embarrassing form of outback machismo, or the most mendacious, self-serving, pity-laden gimmickry one can muster.

And if you think that's opinionated, you should hear what I have to say about Oliver Stone!

Seriously, Gibson and Moore deserve each other. As far as I'm concerned, they're both useless. Give me the Maysles any day for docs, and give me Tim Robbins for an actor who actually looks into what he's talking about and speaks reasonably and rationally when he's doing the talking. [/i]

[Jeremy Blackman]

that self-promoting, social-ill-trivializing Michael Moore . . . the most mendacious, self-serving, pity-laden gimmickry one can muster . . . give me Tim Robbins

I like Tim Robbins (this is very good), but he doesn't exactly stir public opinion. How does Michael Moore trivialize social ills? Have you seen his movies? Have you read his books? That's all he's concerned with. Why do people always have to confuse persistence and a sense of humor with self-indulgence? There are better ways to get money and fame than stirring up the minority.

[godardian]

When I saw him march those kids into the K-Mart headquarters and make a big stink and wait around for hours and then cut to him speaking into microphones, I felt sick. I felt like it was sheer exploitation, like I was watching an episode of South Park. I really felt like he was exploiting those people's pain, and I really don't care at all if they were eager participants- it was his suggestion, it was his idea to catch it all on camera and release it as a hugely successful feature documentary produced by/directed by/starring Michael Moore, so I blame HIM.

I'm sure I agree with most of Moore's political positions. But I can't stand his easy shock-tactic methods. When you address serious issues with the sort of cheesy smugness Moore does, I think you trivialize them. Sad to say. Maybe he does some good, somehow, but he doesn't do anything for me but turn me WAYYY off.

Stirring public opinion these days is a filthy game, BTW. "The public" has apparently mutated into an easy, cheap, gullible whore that needs constant low-blow titillation to even lift its head off the sofa. I prefer to try to seek out a shred of dignity, though you have to dig deeper and deeper for that...

[godardian]

I should mention... I love South Park and don't find it exploitative at all. I don't think you'll never catch those guys claiming to act for the public good and congratulating themselves on camera.

[Jeremy Blackman]

When I saw him march those kids into the K-Mart . . . I felt like it was sheer exploitation . . . I really don't care at all if they were eager participants . . . I can't stand his easy shock-tactic methods. When you address serious issues with the sort of cheesy smugness Moore does, I think you trivialize them.

You're only arguing that because you think he's in it for himself. Is that really is motive? His methods have just as much of an impact on his cause as they do on his audience. They have to know that people will listen to Michael Moore. They have to know that people will be shocked by the truth and seduced by his style. Michael Moore molds public opinion. Tim Robbins gives speeches.

I think his "shock tactics" are just an abrupt revealing of the truth with an ironic sense of humor. And I won't be bothered by them as long as they don't reach exploitation. I don't think you've shown his exploitation--who is harmed (& how?) and who gains from that? Isn't Michael Moore putting himself at risk? It's funny, no one cried exploitation until he became successful with BFC and Stupid White Men.

His "cheesy smugness" as you call it is no different than most political activism. You would call it smug, but I would call it demanding. You call it cheesy, but I would call it a poigniant (and justified) gimmick with a sense of humor.

[godardian]

When I saw him march those kids into the K-Mart . . . I felt like it was sheer exploitation . . . I really don't care at all if they were eager participants . . . I can't stand his easy shock-tactic methods. When you address serious issues with the sort of cheesy smugness Moore does, I think you trivialize them.

It's funny, no one cried exploitation until he became successful with BFC and Stupid White Men.

His "cheesy smugness" as you call it is no different than most political activism.

I beg to differ. Most political activism attempts to call attention to the subject and keep it as far away as possible from the activist. Whenever I think of figureheads for any movement- the Gloria Steinems, the Michaelangelo Signoriles- I always think of Alexander Payne's brilliant Citizen Ruth, the kind of astute political film clumsy-minded Michael Moore could only dream of making (remember Canadian Bacon?).

Pauline Kael was, in fact, calling him on his exploitation way back in 1989 in her review of Roger and Me:

"I've heard it said that Michael Moore's muckraking documentary is scathing and Voltairean. I've read that Michael Moore is a 'satirist of the Reagan period equal in talent to Mencken and Sinclair Lewis,' and 'an irrepressible new humorist in the tradition of Mark Twain and Artemus Ward.' But the film I saw was shallow and facetious, a piece of gonzo demagoguery that made me feel cheap for laughing. I had stopped believing what Moore was saying very early; he was just too glib... He chases gags and improvises his own version of history... The picture is like the work of a slick ad exec... It does something that is humanly very offensive: It uses its leftism as a superior attitude. Members of the audience can laugh at ordinary working people and still feel that they're taking a politically correct position."

[Jeremy Blackman]

I beg to differ. Most political activism attempts to call attention to the subject and keep it as far away as possible from the activist.

Try an example from today. Are you enraptured by the subtlety of anti-war protestors, who say "Hail to the Thief" and write "International Terrorist" under a picture of Bush? It's not an environment for subtlety. Subtle protest is crushed in all its forms, and I think you're naive to hold onto the idea that if an idea is presented ellegantly enough it will be noticed.

the film I saw was shallow and facetious, a piece of gonzo demagoguery that made me feel cheap for laughing.

I think she missed the point... I didn't laugh once during Roger & Me, and I think you're supposed to be afraid by what you might laugh at. Pauline Kael was right to feel cheap. Moore has been pushing boundaries all his career, and his dark ironies crystalize his arguments. I would be disappointed if he softened with his new fame.

And yes, I called you soft.

[godardian]

I beg to differ. Most political activism attempts to call attention to the subject and keep it as far away as possible from the activist.

Try an example from today. Are you enraptured by the subtlety of anti-war protestors, who say "Hail to the Thief" and write "International Terrorist" under a picture of Bush? It's not an environment for subtlety. Subtle protest is crushed in all its forms, and I think you're naive to hold onto the idea that if an idea is presented ellegantly enough it will be noticed.

You're not really responding to what I said. See, I don't think of Michael Moore as a protester at all. Most of those protesters don't care if they're anonymous or not, as long as their message is heard. I think, even if his ideologies are the same as those of the protesters, Moore's tactics work hard against what he's trying to say, and I think he cares a good deal about his own celebrity. I'm not demanding subtlety, necessarily. It's more dignity I'm looking for, a voice- it can be as loud as it likes- that's less compromised than Moore's is by his endless grandstanding and self-promotion.

You're right, protest is not an occasion for elegance. But that's why protest can only ever really be a beginning, not an end to itself. Sloganeering is actually much more disposable and fruitless than real discourse; the ability to think and analyze and EFFECTIVELY strategize should never be "crushed" in a democracy. You probably mean "drowned out," but there are still people left who know how to listen and think without being spoon-fed soundbytes. It's laughable that Michael Moore criticizes the TV news when he plays the exact same game. I want someone who's willing to expose the real problem- the fucking game itself.

The protesters could only be honestly compared to Moore if they were to sign their name prominently and twice as big as the message on their "Hail to the Thiefs."

And I think you're naive not to see how grossly self-impressed Michael Moore is, to the detriment of his so-called causes. And it's naive to believe the loudest voice accomplishes the most, regardless of how distorted or simple-minded it is. Michael Moore could become the greatest albatross this country's left wing has ever seen.

[Jeremy Blackman]

You're not really responding to what I said. See, I don't think of Michael Moore as a protester at all. Most of those protesters don't care if they're anonymous or not, as long as their message is heard.

Moore is a celebrity protestor. He's more of a ringleader, and he needs personality to be that. He does it well.

the ability to think and analyze and EFFECTIVELY strategize should never be "crushed" in a democracy.

No it shouldn't, but it is. The corporate media has gone past stifled, past drowned out, and yes, straight to crushed.

You probably mean "drowned out," but there are still people left who know how to listen and think without being spoon-fed soundbytes . . . it's naive to believe the loudest voice accomplishes the most

This mythical elite minority you're talking about will never change anything, will never convince anyone else, and will exist in a bubble. The battleground is public opinion and isolation is suicidal. I think more can be accomplished, more people can be drawn in, by being extreme.

It's laughable that Michael Moore criticizes the TV news when he plays the exact same game. I want someone who's willing to expose the real problem- the fucking game itself.

I think he parodies the game more than you're willing to admit. He doesn't exploit people for the sake of the game... he exploits the game for the sake of people.

[godardian]

Well, I guess there's no real way to gauge how many minds Michael Moore has changed. But I'm guessing he's preaching to the choir to the same extent or moreso than what you termed the "elite minority" ever has.

I guess you and I will just have to disagree on the importance of this nebulous poll-driven thing called "public opinion." Votes are what count (or are the closest thing to an action that counts, anyway), and most people don't vote. Most people don't care. I think more people who vote are interested in analysis beyond soundbytes than those who don't. I don't think it's an "elite minority."

But maybe voters are an "elite minority," then, on your terms. Maybe Michael Moore throwing muddled public tantrums somehow does affect the world. I don't think it does, though. I think it falsely makes people feel like the world is being changed, that what he's doing is somehow radical and victorious. Even if your theory of loudest and most attention-getting being most effective is true, then that means Michael Moore is playing in the arena of our medium-conservative to hardcore-conservative major media- the Fox Newses and CNNs and Rush Limbaughs, right-wing loudmouths reigning supreme in popularity and ratings- and in that case, he will be the one drowned out. When you play with pigs, you get dirty. And I know for a fact that just because those people are the loudest and seem to galvanize the most public opinion merely because they get the most media attention, they do not represent the majority of us, nor do they hold that much sway over public opinion.