George W. Bush: Faith in the White House - what? Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, etc aren't at all religious? I find that hard to believe. It has an IMDb rating of 4.4 and went direct to video.
Breaking the Da Vinci Code - this is quite possibly the dumbest example they could've provided. It has an IMDb rating of 5.0 and went direct to video.
Michael Moore Hates America - this title makes no sense. It's IMDb rating is 5.3.
Seriously? While the only one that seems to be out to actively be anti-liberal is the last one, the only so called "left documentary" that is anti-conservative and was successul that I can think of is Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Stuff like An Invonvenient Truth and Bowling For Columbine aren't anti-conservative, they're anti-stupid. It's not their fault that Bush seems to be pro-stupid half the time. How many of the anti-Iraq documentaries have made tonnes of cash though? Not many, I would guess. And that John Kerry documentary (Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry) made a staggering (lol) $600,000.
My personal favourite moment of the original article was this bit:
He and his wife, he says, went to their local art house, where the menu was “Bowling for Columbine,” “Frida” and “The Life of David Gale” — films, respectively, by a liberal, about a Marxist and against capital punishment. The Hubbards weren’t pleased.
I haven't seen the last one, but my knowledge is that NOBODY thinks The Life of David Gale is good and saying Frida is about a Marxist is like saying Downfall is about a nazi (lol, which is is obviously). It sort of doesn't have anything to do with it. And while I can see them not liking Bowling For Columbine, it's not like it's at the level of vitriol that Fahrenheit 9/11 had. Yes, it's anti-conservative in that it's against things such as guns and whatever, but again - it's like saying just because someone thinks the US should have gun control immediately makes them a liberal bible-hater.
"If you look at the top 20 documentaries in the political genre, 18 or 19 take a left-of-center position. And if you look at the last election, 51 percent of the country takes a right-of-center position. You’d think there’d be a market there.”
Again, couldn't it just be that the majority of those "right-of-center" voters aren't the audience for documentaries. I'm not gonna make wide blanketing statements, but documentaries are traditionally NY/LA territory and aren't those two cities predominantly liberal? Jo and Flo Blow from Kansas aren't gonna be able to see something like Michael Moore Hates America because a) Distributers are stupid and don't realise that a lot of conservatives don't live in NY/LA and b) they probably don't know or care who Michael Moore is. They even admit this fact later on when discussing a documentary they made about a POW (yet, they never give the title) “But our staff were, probably rightly, convinced that our audience doesn’t appreciate ‘that sort of thing.’"
And the right documentaries that seem to be out there, for exaple Fahrenhype 9/11, are 80 minutes long and exist only to stick their tongues out and go "na nane na na" at the lefty documentaries/films. Michael Moore Hates America even steals the same structure as Michael Moore's on Roger & Me (unseen by me, but it doesn't sound anti-right to me.)
They provide another good bit. Would you rather see a documentary that exposes a market chain (for the sake of the argument, ahem, let's say Wal-Mart) - Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price - or a documentary that talks about how lovely it is and how it never does anything wrong - Why Wal-Mart Works: And Why That Drives Some People C-r-a-z-y. For the record, BOTH of those titles were direct to video, so it's not just conservative territory.
It's the "Today Tonight" thing ("Today Tonight" is a nightly news program in Australia that deals with the latest weight loss drugs/dole bludgers/skin cream miracles and marketing scams). People don't wanna watch stories about how pretty kittens are. They wanna see dumb idiots who tortured kittens get their comeuppance. Conflict is where it's at. And that's probably the main reason left documentaries are popular at the moment. The current administration gets people riled up. When conservatives are out of the office and liberals are in (whenever that may be) I'm sure there will plenty of rightwing film makers getting angry and wanting to make documentaries. Nobody wants to see films that talk about how great current situations are. It's why horror movies are so successful - they tap into fear. It's why rom-coms are so successful - they tap into fantasy. etc. If every movie was about how great life is right now it'd be stupid. People want anger, fury and fire. Not daisies and rainbows - that's for IMAX. If you do make a documentary about daisies and rainbows though, you better be talking about how disastrous they are to our economy/environment/health ya hear me?!
Plus, cinema has changed dramatically since Clinton left and Bush took over. Basically anyone can pick up a camera now and make a scathing documentary on the subject of their choice. Kids do it in school, so why not try-hard professionals? I'm sure the actual number of documentaries released prior to, say, 2000 was significantly lower than the number today, let alone the numbers of documentaries about politics. Lefties shouldn't be yelled at for taking some initiative (and I mean, it's not like they're NOT preaching to the converted anyway)
They bring this point up at the very end that makes me feel much better.
“A documentary should be an investigation,” Mr. Hubbard said. “You might have a preconceived notion, but we definitely want to keep an open mind. If we have to criticize Republicans, we’re going to criticize them. And if we find a place to praise Democrats, we’re going to do that.”
It'd be better if they realised this at the very start of the article, right? A doco does need to be an investigation, but when your so called investigation comes down to just ridiculing other filmmakers and their films it all gets sort of beyond the point. Like the daisies and rainbows bit. Why should anyone care about a doco that shows how great George W Bush is while he's still in office? It's obvious that there's not going to be anything interesting there, or any facts that are worth investigation, which is why "left documentaries" are popular now. Lefties are angry and making movies about it. It's all very simple, really.But, still, I would love to see how many of the documentaries perceived as being left are actually by Republicans? I'm sure the number is very very minute. A conservative isn't going to make a documentary condemning their leader. But on the other side of the coin, a Democrat isn't going to make documentary condemning their leader (whoever it may be at the time) or their party. That's counterproductive and they don't need that. So, basically, they're as bad as each other really.
ANYWAY, I kind of got sidetracked with this. This wasn't meant to be the topic of this entry, but I kinda got on a huff. Oh well.
(This was really a whole bunch of rambling, sorry)
3 comments:
I agree that the purpose of these docs (and art in general) is to pinpoint what's wrong in people and society so we can do *something* about it. I'm just really not into political documentaries, though. "Fahrenheit 9/11" was like a guilty pleasure, very entertaining but ultimately inconsequential, and it isn't really saying anything of substance (to me). Again, this was my problem with "Good Night, and Good Luck". It's good preaching, alright, but it's still preaching to the converted, and I see no real thesis at work. I guess that would explain my disdain for most political stuff (from any side).
Yeah, I totally think that too - but I also think it's silly for people to expect movies that just talk about how great things are or whatever. That doesn't help anybody.
I loved Good Night and Good Luck though as a thriller, and I wasn't very knowledgable of the subject so that was great too.
Very pretty site! Keep working. thnx!
»
Post a Comment