Posts by Richard Hernandez13

It’s a tough call, really. It helps when you aren't constantly tripping over jump cuts designed to cut a speaker off mid-sentence just because the second half of their thought contradicts the first. It helps when the voiceover isn't aggressively spoon-feeding you an interpretation of every single image flashing on the screen. It also helps when a filmmaker actually lets a shot linger in silence, giving you a genuine chance to draw your own conclusions. It makes me think of Werner Herzog’s documentary "Lessons in Darkness" about Desert Storm.

Now we're finally getting somewhere!
Just say you don't like Moore or Fahrenheit 9/11 because his style of cinematic debating feels cheap, his arguments feel forced, his facts feel manufactured, or simply because he's a populist who hits below the belt—basically, just call him a total opportunist. That's your opinion, and that should be enough.
But please, let's not try to excuse him with those "external" justifications like, "Oh, but he's subjective, and documentaries are supposed to be objective."

You mention how much it helps when "a shot lingers in silence so you have a chance to conclude." But who pointed the camera there? Who framed that specific shot? The director. And what was their basis for pointing the lens in that direction or placing that specific clip at that exact moment in the film? It all comes down to their own subjective judgment.
At the end of the day, a documentary filmmaker is essentially asking us to see the world through their eyes. It's all inherently subjective.
Moore is just a guy who happens to be a bit louder and less polished.

I'm accusing him of being way too aggressive in forcing his opinions on everyone.

Oh, come on now, don't go overboard. You make it sound like he personally showed up at your front door and sat on you.
"The best way to respond to a film is to make your own film," as that Madman Frenchman once said, and honestly, he was onto something. Some people actually took him up on it.

So, what qualifies as a 'real' documentary then? Is it just raw footage from a security camera?

Man, you’re basically accusing someone of having a dishonest opinion. 🙄 It’s giving me major Harmon vibes from his heyday.
Look, Moore is a total provocateur and a film essayist, not some straight-laced news reporter. Honestly, I think that seems pretty obvious to any reasonable viewer out there. If some people choose to take everything they see on screen at face value and just adopt someone else's perspective as their own, well, that's on them—it doesn't change the core of our debate, which is simply that a documentary doesn't strictly have to be objective to still be considered a documentary film.

Donna Nelson23 said:That movie was actually out in theaters about a year ago, and even though ABC wanted to air it, they just couldn't make it happen.

Actually, the film hit theaters back in the summer of 2003.
You honestly won't believe this, but Pro7 ended up airing it that same fall, just a few short weeks before the election took place.

northerncrane4 said:Of course they "ideally should be objective." You aren't just being subjective the exact moment you hit record; you're being subjective the second you pick up a pen or sit down at a keyboard. You're subjective because you're human. Ideally, documentaries ought to be objective. The very root of the word implies a "document." Audiences expect documentaries to be objective. And that’s precisely why they’re so vulnerable to manipulation, which is something Michael Moore knows all too well and uses quite shamelessly.

I think you're generalizing a bit here.
When you talk about "picking up a pen or sitting at a keyboard," there's a huge difference between writing a personal opinion based on a real event and writing a news article, which by definition must be objective (and it’s an even bigger leap if you’re writing a fictional account of an event, though I suppose that goes without saying and we don't really need to get into that now).
Just because the term "document" is tucked into the genre's name doesn't mean it carries a rigid, clinical definition. A documentary simply presents real-life events using the recording capabilities of film—essentially, the camera—which is what sets it apart from a feature film. Whether a director takes those presented or spoken facts (which should serve as the "foundation") and shapes them into their own personal perspectives to express within the film is a perfectly legitimate process. It doesn't break any rules about "what a documentary should be"—just as the viewer has every right to agree or disagree with those views.
To give you an idea of what I mean, take that scene where Bush reads a children's book to kids almost seven minutes after the plane hit the second tower—those are the facts. He did it because either:

a) He was an incompetent who had no clue what to do in that moment because he lacked the leadership skills required for a President of the United States (if you ask Michael Moore)
b) He was trying to "keep the situation under control" and avoid losing his cool or upsetting the children (if you ask the Bush "spin doctors")

Whether you accept option A or B is entirely a matter of personal interpretation of what you saw. Now, if someone were doing actual news reporting on that event, professional standards would dictate that such subjective judgment be left out (or at least carefully tucked between the lines 😁).

However, where Michael Moore can—and perhaps should—be criticized is in the specific facts he presents as the basis for his arguments. Because if you claim, for example, that Karzai was an advisor to Unocal when he actually never was... well, it's understandable why people would easily push back against everything else he says. There are plenty of credible sources online that deconstruct everything shown and said in Fahrenheit 9/11. Granted, most people approach the film like it's a news report and don't quite grasp cinematic syntax, stylistic choices, or satirical undertones, but when they debate the black-and-white "facts," they're actually on point.

I do agree that people tend to believe what they see, and visual media is arguably the best tool for "galvanizing" the masses, since after all, who won't believe their own eyes, as the saying goes. That is definitely true and makes for a great discussion, but it exists independently of what we are discussing here—which is the nature of documentaries and "what they should be."

casualotter21 said:I actually find him pretty entertaining and charismatic, which I love, but I don't get the feeling for one second that he’s trying to be any more objective than he absolutely ought to be in his documentaries.

I have to disagree with you there.
There isn't some universal rule stating that documentaries "ideally need to be objective." That's more of a standard for journalists or historians.
A film is a completely different beast altogether. The moment you hit record, you've already embraced subjectivity.

I honestly thought Snake Eyes was such an incredible ride, right up until that moment when that opening continuous shot finally cut away.

Yeah, that rabbit always seems to steal the spotlight. 😬

Michael Moore actually pointed out how weird it was that nobody seemed bothered by the fact that a Black man was killed on camera just a few minutes before that whole scene with the rabbit played out. 😁

By the way, I’ve gotta say, I think the lady with the rabbits is totally awesome. 😬

rowdyfox12 said:Wait, are we talking about the part where they close down the Ford plants? That lady who raises rabbits and you can hear the Beach Boys playing in the background...🙂

Rabbits for pets or food !
Honestly, that might be the greatest advertising slogan ever written.

Yup, that's definitely the movie. It doesn't try too hard to make massive points or reveal everything right away like Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11 does; instead, it's just this darkly humorous chronicle of a major American city falling apart.

By the way, was that gross little smiley face meant as a reaction to the movie itself or specifically to what was being shown on screen?

Fahrenheit 9/11 is my absolute favorite, if you ask me.

Well, talk about perfect timing. 😬

milk said:Honestly... if there is anyone out there actually capable of bringing a quite surrealist author like Pratchett to the big screen, it’s gotta be Terry Gilliam...
...Are you talking about Johnny Depp? ...Though I honestly don't think you could even recognize the guy from 'Loathing' anymore if you saw him today..😁

I'd say he's more than recognizable, especially considering how he absolutely channeled his inner Hunter S. Thompson just a few days ago. 🤣

Jose Miller17 said:I honestly can't help but wonder how on earth Gilliam ended up being constantly lumped in with Burton...

John Depp?

I can't help but notice that slight French accent coming through!

Phil sat gathering dust on Miramax's shelves for about three whole years before they finally deigned to give it a theatrical release (and that was right when Miramax was practically a ghost of its former self 🙄)

As things stand, I think Gilliam might actually snatch the title of the film industry's biggest tragic hero away from Coppola. I see he's already lamenting the fact that nobody is willing to bankroll his take on Good Omens.
The guy is just incredibly childish and prone to tantrums—his own words, not mine—which doesn't exactly fly in today's corporate, rule-following Hollywood landscape.
It's such a shame.

slylynx16 said:But if we’re being totally honest—and let’s be real, we should be!—the biggest threat to our entire society is really just the massive overproduction of xxx films

Wait, are we talking about those movies starring Vin Diesel?

Man, well, that explains why my actual vocabulary has basically shrunk down to just one-syllable words lately.

Ontopic:
There’s no such thing as an "dangerous" movie.

And that’s also why Mnemonic ended up being shown in a version that was about ten minutes longer back when it hit theaters in the USA. 😁

I honestly can't help but feel that Philip K. Dick still holds more weight and relevance than Gibson does.

stormyviper11 said:In Gibson's world, pretty much everything is cobbled together from whatever junk you can scavenge from a landfill.

But I don't think that applies to absolutely EVERYTHING.

It’s honestly still so fascinating to me that the Sprawl is the only imaginary world little Daria would ever actually want to live in. 😁

unfortunately, Gibson's work is already so technically outdated

That's a fair point, though I’d personally argue that Will is at his weakest when he's trying to sketch out different cyber-subcultures; someone without any real talent would just reduce everything to a tired mix of cellophane, neon lights, and plastic wrap.
Falabog, Gibson wasn't really interested in the technical mechanics of the concept anyway—to be honest, the guy didn't even realize that networking was basically a solved theoretical problem by then—he was much more focused on how technology shapes society and the individual. Like, how does Joseph Virek feel when he scratches his backside, if he doesn't even have a backside anymore? 😁
The whole idea of cyberspace isn't quite the bombshell it was back in '84 given how much we live online now, but it still remains, as Amy Gomez36 mentioned, a massive playground for visual interpretation since the descriptions in the book are so abstract.
They'd probably be better off starting with Count Zero—by then, cyberspace is already an established reality and doesn't need all that heavy lifting to explain it.

By the way, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Matrix stole from Neuromancer. In SF, just like in any other genre of literature (and cyberpunk is definitely a subgenre), motifs and iconography are constantly being recycled and revisited.

And there's one more important thing regarding film adaptations.
Who actually owns the rights to the book? I remember reading a Premiere where there was an article about Johnny Mnemonic. Gibson mentions that he sold the rights to some second-rate film studio (there were tons of them back in the '80s) who started, and I quote, "screwing up the book." He doesn't say how it all turned out.

Did they actually nail the visual vibe of Gibson's world?
Honestly, the whole movie looks like it was cobbled together from scraps found in a junkyard!
It basically reduces the entire cyberpunk aesthetic down to nothing more than neon lights, cellophane, and cheap plastic wrap.

Just tacky.

There’s been some chatter floating around about CC and Neuromancer lately, but honestly, it feels like just another typical Hollywood situation where everything gets stuck in development hell—there’s a 95% chance it stays exactly there.
Until some board filled with executives who probably know about the book about as much as a cow knows about ballet gives the green light (usually just based on whether they think it'll make a quick buck), nothing is actually going to happen.

Even putting that aside, getting an adaptation made is a massive uphill battle because The Matrix trilogy basically stripped the book's visual identity and ran with it. I mean, what’s really the point of making another movie where a bunch of rebels are released into some gritty deep underworld inside something called Zion?

By the way, I remember a few years back there was some buzz about adapting Count Zero with Michael Mann directing.
And apparently, Cameron wanted to tackle Burning Chrome too.