In these days of more hard hitting docos by Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore I just wonder if Denton trod just a little too carefully around the issues presented here.
There were some extreme fundamentalist christian views expressed by various people being interviewed; I guess Denton left it pretty much all up to the viewer to decide for him/herself.
It would have been nice to know what HE thought.
He just lets people tell their own stories, and doesn't input his own bias or slant. He was very non-confrontational, but it was appropriate given he wanted to present a fly-on-the-wall look at the evangelical community.
Ultimately, what he thinks is pretty irrelevant. Not everything needs to be op-ed. As you note, the Spurlocks/Moores(et al) drip their own egos over their work and don't let the subject speak for itself. I wouldn't even call Moore a documentarian.
When you let people be themselves, you usually find them at their most revealing. This is precisely the theory of "giving them enough rope..."
I care very little for documentaries that tell me what to think. A balanced and less ego-driven approach is useful simply because the world is never as easy as the black/white, good/evil dichotomy so many make it out to be.
A filmmaker could easily have made out these people to look like complete nutters, or concersely the shining light of humanity. Neither of these views were pushed on the viewer; and justly so, because like most things, neither extreme is the whole truth.
Proud member of COW-DJ
The movie seemed to use a similar interview style to what he has used in previous television shows (e.g. Enough Rope).
To me, I see it as a good thing: I watched the documentary to find out about the people at the convention. If I wanted to know about Andrew, I'd watch a show where he was the one being interviewed.
I agree with what the other posters have said, they make some really great points, although I know what you mean. It can be annoying when they just don't really put any apparent personal input on their views in a documentary like this, but I don't think he was too respectful for not going off at them. As people have said, that enables them to show themselves, and that's often more revealing (and damaging)...enough rope. It was very clever. I guess that's just his style. Richard Dawkins got a tad angry in similar circumstances and it didn't look well for him or the other people and it was also more uncomfortable viewing, although very interesting as well.
shareI think it would have been possible not so much for him to get angry at them, but perhaps make some more confrontational logical arguments against what they said. For example, in regards to the Bible vs the Koran -- how about commenting that the Koran also says it is "true", or perhaps asking "So basically you believe in the Bible because it says that it is telling the truth?"
Essentially I take issue in the fact that I am pretty well aware of how each person was going to respond, and I wished that the interviewer had taken things one step further and given us some more insight into their beliefs. On the other hand, perhaps their beliefs are only one step deep and things would merely fall apart after that barrier.