MovieChat Forums > Biggie and Tupac (2002) Discussion > How **not** to make a documentary

How not to make a documentary

posted 20 years ago by pwirth
27 replies | jump to latest

Biggie and Tupac is a chronology of Broomfield's complete failure to unearth any interesting material on his subjects, totally overshadowed by his blandiose, wooden narration.

I found his attitude and treatment of his subjects to be insufferable, from his attempts at pidgin English (akin to reading Dick and Jane novels aloud) to his unprepared, incompetent interviews (showing up and ambushing people, losing sound files, etc.) Broomfield has a unique talent for getting in the way of the story he is purporting to tell. He was more interested in hearing himself talk, and following his own blundering, as he put up increasing barriers between himself and his subjects.

In addition, how does the director expect us to be engaged by the story, when it is clear he has no interest in hearing what people have to say? Ambush journalism fails when you are being aggressive without asking anything of import. He can't ask an interesting question, how can one expect him to spin a compelling narrative?

This movie was a pathetic attempt by a director worth ignoring.

[–] buttzilla 20 years ago

i thought it was good

[–] clemtinite 20 years ago

I strongly disagree.
Broomfield has created a persona for himself: a foolish, bumbling but relatively brave ambush journalist who goes about about his work in an incredibly unusual way. He goes out of his way to provide amusement through simply idiotic or fascinatingly dangerous actions.
So the entertainment is more in Broomfield's eccentric character - I mean, the narration is amazing:

"Unhappily, we never did reach agreement with Reggie, but as we still had the prison's permission to film we decided to go anyway even though Suge Knight had refused. The camera person dropped out for self preservation, but the rest of us had overseas passports, so we went anyway."
or
"My camera man seemed a bit jittery: it was like he wasn't there, dreaming of some tropical island in a better world somewhere else. I noticed he seemed to be looking around for a possible route of escape."

Another example, look at the Mopreme sequence. He 'runs out of sound' before he clearly has some kind of gigantic argument with Mopreme, which later prompts him to start their next conversation with "Peace... Peace in the middle east". Mopreme quite obviously doesn't like talking about his 'humiliation', and this was more than likely the nature of the argument. After all of this, Broomfield entitles the chapter on the DVD 'The Humiliation of Mopreme'.

Brilliant.

[–] sljones44 19 years ago

I CONCUR. He does seem like the "absent minded-director" "oh, im in a bad neighborhood?"..I mean It was incredulous to see this guy walk down some streets even black people would be afraid to go down!!!..He was able to get information and this was a very interesting topic that even Unsolved Mysteries got into. The L.A.P.D. connection was especially intriguing... however, he wasn't the only person to interview Suge Knight. Believe it or not, Warren Beatty met Suge Knight in a diner, with no security or anything to discuss "realities" of innercity life while researching casting for Bulworth.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DazzaPFC 19 years ago

Ditto - saw the film at the Trocadero (London) on it's (very limited) UK release a couple of years ago. Also own the DVD. Poses more questions than it answers, but I thought it was very good. At the time I expected a few ramifications as a direct result of it's release. Nothing seemed to come of the few but main findings, which in hindsight makes me question just how thoroughly investigated this documentary was, and how valid it's suppositions were. But it needed to be made. Now it need's bringing upto date and re-investigating.

Heil Pucinni!

[–] hawkley_mafia 19 years ago

I am currently studying on a Media Degree at the University College of Chester and am interested in using this documentary for a presentation to be undertaken as apart of my Documentary Genres module.

I am finding hearing your views interesting and if anyone knows of any websites with more information on this film or about Broomfield himself i would appreciate it if you would inform me of them:

contact me on [email protected]

[–] casadejoyce 15 years ago

watch the doc on Frontline on pbs.org; America's public broadcasting network; the only thing that Broomfield got into that PBS didn't was "The Bookkeeper" interview in jail; I didn't believe that fraud anyway; the PBS doc got more in depth with the Ramparts LAPD scandal that involved Mack, Perez, etc.

[–] iamtriangled 17 years ago

sljones44 said, "I mean It was incredulous to see this guy walk down some streets even black people would be afraid to go down!!!...

Yea, good point because black people are afraid of almost nothing because they're black!!!!!

[–] zaudo 16 years ago

I think he just meant that black people are a majority in Baltimore, and so a white person in a Baltimore suburb is at more risk.

[–] bonjyyoler 18 years ago

Its a good documentary that raises questions and gets u thinking. it is not there to provide answers but to raise questions and see why there arent any answers.

As for broomfield, he's got character and wat makes it a better film is that it is not just slick interviews and cuts between places but gives u a feel that it is a journey that he is taking to try and un-earth some truth.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kaned_247_69 18 years ago

<but i prefer morgan spurlock>

Faliure...
The guy only made one film, and basically all he did was stuff himself with unhealthy food. We all know what was going to happen, we all know that Mc Donald's is unhealthy... Was the documentary even necessary or informative? I dont think so. You should know this, as your taking media, its called a "stunt doc". Part of the whole post modernism movement, a cross between realitiy TV and soap but only in a filmic version. I watched it, and found it funny, and entertaining, but to be honest it was pointless. In my personal opinion the best "stunt doc" presenter lead documentary film makers to study for the media exam would be:

Nick Broomfield - Stunt Doc? Yes! Alot of his films are generally about getting the interview

Michael Moore - Oh come on! But at an academic level he's a good choice to study, his well known, hence familiarity with the examiners, his work is easy to understand and easy to define, as I did recently, you can write 5 pages discussing how much you hate michael moore and his socialist wezel lies.

Andrew Jarecki - Not quite as presenter led, BUT, as a first time docu director, he beats that fake Morgan Spurlock hands down, for the fact Capturing the Freidmans is one of the most harrowing, enlightful, powerful, disturbing, brilliant documentary ever made

Werner Herzog - Grizzly Man & The White Diamond. The guy speaks for himself, he is a genius! (He also makes 'real' movies, there worth a check out)

Martin Scorcsese - A fantastic documentary film maker! Check out italianamerican & No Direction home. (He also makes 'real' movies... If you didnt know that, you deserve instant death)

And there are many people, way better than Morgan Spurlock, Robert Greenwald, Robert Drew, Michael Wadleigh, GOD THERE ARE SO MANY

In closing, the words "Morgan Spurlock" shouldn't come any where near the word "Documentary", because essentially, the one film he made, "Super Size Me", is basically a glorified film length Jackass: The Movie 2. Theres no need for its existance, and we watch it because we want to see the *beep* die, or nearly die. Thats the only attraction to watch that film. And dont tell me Americans didnt know about junk food being unhealthy, because the only people who would have seen the film, are educated, middle class well off people (falls under independent cinema, essentially way, way, way out of the mainstream, independent cinema generally assumes an intelligent audience, therefore an educated audience, therefore a well off audience (financially to afford good education). Look I'm just telling you now, Morgan Spurlock isnt some great messaiha of documentary that alot of people are painting him to be. He's a patronising *beep* for one, WAAAAAY more patronising than Michael Moore, and thats *beep* saying something!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AlbinoBadBob 16 years ago

Really? If nothing else the film demonstrates the size of Broomfields balls.

When you've got to shoot,shoot.Don't talk.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lettersro 15 years ago

i agree with you.. i've seen many documentary films.. and this is by far the worst. The idea and the informations gained are good but the documentarist is very.. but very bad. No good questions during the interviews, no strategies.. nothing. He is popping the question right on site, not even trying to ambush the subjects in question, just thinkin and listening at what are they saying. Some part in this film he even don't know what to question anymore and there are gaps and silence.. and questions like: Really? Do you? Yes? Right ? . Stupid.

maybe the informations are good, but the documentarist is verry, but very bad.

2 from 10. This is my vote.

[–] An_Invisible_Dog 15 years ago

Yeah, he really is bad.

When he was on the phone to that FBI guy he didn't know what to say, he didn't even state what his business was until a minute into the telephone call when the FBi guy asked.

[–] iscream22 14 years ago

I was pretty dissappointed with this film as well, its more like a first year film students project than a actual film. Very lackluster, Pac and Biggie deserve better treatment.

2Pac Ressurection was a far better documentary in so many ways.