...believing anybody that makes a documentary can show both sides of a story without editing to make one look stupid. A perfect example is the manipulation that Michael Moore spins in his interviews; thank goodness he's getting sued.
Back to this "documentary," I'm pretty skeptical both sides will be *fairly* represented.
What is your opinion?
The case in point for this documentary, Michael Moore's documentaries, and any other documentary being produced by someone with a strong opinon on something, is that they'll inevitably be biased towards one side of the story. They have to be. Otherwise, what would drive the story forward? Of course, it's very unprofessional and all, and documentaries should be a straightforward presentation of the facts, but really, how often does that occur in real life?
Even the news is biased.
Very true.... and more than people are willing to admit or even want to know. That is why you need to look at the propaganda coming from every side, before deciding what is true. It also helps to know human nature, which is not that different from the wild animal kingdom :)
shareUnless you can point me in a direction to help me understand your point better, no definition of the word documentary says one cannot have a point of view.
As for this documentary, I thought both sides were represented equally. As opposed to Michael Moore films, there was no narration; just testimonials, commentaries and stock footage from both sides. And trust me when I say both sides look stupid in this film.
[deleted]
Are we talking about the same movie? The one I saw had no "Michael Moore like" qualities. Both sides talked about their respective campaigns, otherwise allowed factual information to stand on its own without judgement. The facts painted the campaigns in a bad light and maybe that's what you have an issue with but don't blame it on the people who shot the documentary.
I'd be more inclined to understand your point of view if you gave examples of what was BS about the movie but the part with the swift boats was in relation to the campaign itself and not any value judgement by the filmmakers.
The problem is that it was pretty honest to both sides. Both the democrats and republicans got to say their thing and it did a good job at not being too biased. However, I think that when Republicans see themselves for who they really are, they get embarrassed and just assume they're being painted in a bad light, when in reality, it's what a majority of them are.
shareDid you watch the film?
shareSo, using this reasoning, it's safe to say that March of the Penguins was biased and skewed. And I suppose you think Murderball focused too much on quadriplegic basketball and not enough on the NBA?
shareMarch of the Penguins took an abusively unfair pro-Penguin stance. I think without equal or near-equal time spent both showing the pros and cons of penguins, it's just a bunch of anti-seal and anti-freezing-to-death propoganda put out by the environmentalists and penguin supporters to sway opinion.
"March of the Penguins took an abusively unfair pro-Penguin stance. I think without equal or near-equal time spent both showing the pros and cons of penguins, it's just a bunch of anti-seal and anti-freezing-to-death propoganda put out by the environmentalists and penguin supporters to sway opinion."
"Give them nothing, but take from them everything."(300):3/9/07
When Fahrenheit 9/11 was in theatres I came to the conclusion that a documentary is hardly ever objective. How can it be, unless it's about biology or a subject that doesn't have two sides? Clearly, Moore's films are biased. (Only an idiot would expect Fahrenheit 9/11 to say flattering things about Mr. Bush.) But bias is not the same as lying. I think it's perfectly fine as long as the filmmaker isn't creating non-truths to support his or her opinion. And, as much as The Right doesn't want to believe it, Moore does do his research and does present factual evidence to support his views. Bush made mistakes. It's not wrong to make a film exposing these things. I will say that Moore may exaggerate a point here and there... again, nobody's perfect. In terms of this film, the bias does not feel so heavy, and I think us Lefties wanted a little more to that effect. So I think anyone that is interested in presidential elections and political campaigns can watch this without feeling like it's pushing a personal agenda on the viewer. And just because you may not like a certain truth does not make it a lie. A strong case in point: An Inconvenient Truth.
shareI'm in total agreement with you.
It is amazing that our president believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old and dinosaurs and humans coexisted at the same time.
I thought that this documentary was pretty fair to both sides. The key, as I see it, is that the people who were interviewed were very fair and honest about both the strengths and weaknesses of each campaign. They Kerry people were willing to say "they beat us in this area" and the Bush people were willing to say "They out did us here" By asking questions of the interviewees that got honest answers instead of playing a blame game, I thought they kept it pretty darn fair.
share