Content vs. Construct: The "Trillness" of Documentary Film

Michael Moore is often portrayed as a morbidly obese, left wing nut, hellbent on criticizing the radical right in his award winning documentaries. Despite the brutal judgments, his films raise very legitimate questions and analyzes aspects of American government, society, and culture which deserve critiquing. However, Moore and his films are often criticized for being inaccurate, hyperbolic, or repressive of opposing views. His 2002 film, Bowling for Columbine, investigates America's obsession with guns and, further, our culture of fear and violence. Moore sets out to answer the questions of why America has one of the highest homicide rates in the world, despite our similarities to other free world countries with lesser homicide rates. It is a valid question to ask, and Moore attempts to answer it by interviewing both "average" and "elite" Americans, as well as analyzing the American mainstream media.

Although Moore proposes an answer to this question, it is by no means the answer, and many individuals will probably view it as a "radical" response or even might call it a conspiracy theory. Regardless of your opinion, the actual documentary itself, both with the content of the information presented and the way this content is presented, illicit a strong reaction in any "type" of viewer. Yet, most people would agree that documentaries are supposed to present an unbiased truth and realness of the subject that it is presenting. While Moore is presenting a multifaceted issue, shouldn't the trillness (truth + realness) of the subject be preserved and accurately presented? As much as we would like to believe that documentary film makers are presenting the topic of their film in a complete and unbiased manner, the truth of the medium of documentary filmmaking is that the way in which the viewer comes to "know" the "facts" completely relies upon the director and editor of the documentary. By analyzing the content and the construct of Moore's documentary, we can critique the reliability and consequential power that documentary truly possess.

Throughout the two hour presentation, Moore interviews an eclectic array of individuals who play different parts in the epic story of America's relationship between guns and violence. Some of these individuals are victims of the Columbine shooting, members of the Michigan militia, a brother (and possible accomplice) of one of the Oklahoma City bombers, some random Canadians, and Charleston Heston--head of the NRA. When Moore is interviewing the more "radical" individuals, he appears to be more candid in his motivation for interviewing that certain person. For example, throughout the entire film, he has been criticizing Chareton Heston (head of the NRA), but when he begins his interview, he shows Mr. Heston his (Moore's) NRA membership club and speaks highly of gun ownership. However, by the end of the interview, he intensely questions Heston's decision to protest gun laws just days after Columbine. Although Moore's questions and critiques are most often completely justified, he is certainly asking questions to get a certain response--the radical folks should say something ridiculous that will make the already questioning audience see them in a "crazy" or "incorrect manner". The individuals who have been afflicted by guns should be asked questions which will cause them to share emotional stories or pleas. The "average joes" should say something ignorantly endearing which will demonstrate the overall ignorance of the typical American.

Not only do these interviews seem very well thought out, but they are both edited and placed throughout the documentary in a very strategic and effective manner. You will almost never see the entirety of an interview in a documentary. This is, of course, for sake of time, but it is also for sake of the construct of the documentary. If a Columbine victim were to say something in support of anti-gun control, this would effect Moore's construct that all victims of gun violence want stricter gun control. I'm not saying that the edited parts of the hundreds of interviews that Moore and his crew did would completely destroy the argument of the movie, but it would certainly give an opposing view of the subject, which is something that Moore is often criticized for never doing. Further, the interviews are very brilliantly placed throughout the movie to elevate the emotional construct which the film and the makers create. Right after the tragedy of Columbine is brought up, an interview and segment with the Michigan Militia (a group of every day dudes who are passionate about protecting themselves and their families with a copious amount of guns) is displayed.

Moore, quite brilliantly, combines the ridiculous with the serious, ignorance with facts, and tragedies  with first person accounts. By doing so, the viewer's emotions get mixed with facts, and it's quite difficult to not buy into the message being dissipated. After the first time I watched this movie as an impressionable 17 year old, I immediately became passionate about criticizing the media's fear mongering and wanted to "wake" up the rest of America. I think that's something really interesting about these sorts of societal/cultural critique documentaries--unless you have researched the facts of both sides of the arguments, it becomes very easy to be swayed by what has just been presented to you through emotional (often graphic) cinematography and persuasive narrating. Descartes' methodology for proper use of reason immediately comes to mind. I also ask, can and should documentary making be seen as an art? Or should it purely be an objective display of facts, such as a National Geographic or "Thin Blue Line"-eque documentary? As an individual who is both captivated by documentaries and documentary making, I am prone to believe that there can be healthy medium between fact and art, which I will refrain from calling "fart".

Ben Fritz (a random blogger I found with some criticisms of the movie) articulates Moore's "distortions of the truth" and contradictions within Moore's argument:

"Repeatedly, though, he returns to the issue of fear in the movie, claiming that excessive coverage of gun violence by the media makes Americans scared of each other and therefore more violent. This circular argument doesn't make any sense either. On the one hand, Moore has made an entire film purporting to investigate why the U.S. has the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world. He then attempts to answer the question by theorizing that the media provides too much coverage of gun violence, causing citizens to fear each other. If gun violence is really so bad, though, shouldn't the media be covering it and don't citizens have something to be afraid of? And if the media is indeed over-covering the issue and America is safer than we think, why did Moore make this film?"

(http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html)

It is clear that Moore has an agenda, and has developed somewhat of a thesis for his film, and then has attempted to support and prove his thesis through interviews, facts, and analysis. But is this an accurate way to defend your beliefs? Should you be able to pick and choose the dialogue which you take into account? Should a director only display emotional video clips which kind of force the viewer to agree with the message of the film? 

In the end, Moore, like most documentary filmmakers, is attempting to tell a real story. It is clear that he is very cautiously picking what he chooses to show, and then acting like that is the truth. However, the limitations of documentary filmmaking make this an issue throughout the entire medium. Because of this, viewers should take a personal sense of responsibility to take these films as a "jumping off point" for research and true understanding. The power of analytic, or, "fart" documentaries shouldn't be to simply educate viewers on a controversial topic, but should encourage the viewers to remain curious and seek complete understanding through extended research and contemplation.