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."
