"Best documentary director" Topic

I read an article on Michael Moore (in the New York Times) that referred to him as the most successful documentary filmmaker in history. I cringed and thought to myself, what makes a documentary filmmaker successful? Well, to me, Ken Burns has to be the most successful. He's insightful, thought-provoking, balanced and nostalgic at the same time. He can make just about whatever he wants. I mean, who can fund a film that lasts 17 hours on a subject that doesn't appeal to everyone (e.g. baseball)? His Civil War documentary is required watching for many students.

To me, Moore's work is contentious, totally unbalanced and borders on propaganda. I guess he's successful in that he sells tickets, but I think posterity will see him as a flash in the pan, if that.

FYI – Ken Burns 12 hour documentary on U.S. national parks will be airing soon. I think it's a great time for this to come out now that many people are considering the value in preserving our Civil War battlefields.

Steve
cavalcadewargames.com
nycjadie.wordpress.com

I'll second Ken Burns !!!

Successful = butts in seats.

Best is another criterion.

My vote would be Burns as well. I'll need to watch "The Civil War" when I get home.

I was treated a few years ago by a Doctor Michael Moore. He was visibly tired of the jokes.

Moore is a hack and a propagandist, not a documentary filmmaker. If he's a "documentary filmmaker," then so was Joseph Goebbels. :-P

Ken Burns, by far.

Jacques Yves Cousteau?

Ditto Parzival's comment.

"Jacques Yves Cousteau?"

In his generation and for his chosen topics, I would have to agree. One of the last of the Great Explorers, and a fine documentary maker to boot. His film-making style (the "camera as crew member" immersion style) is visible in a wide variety of modern media today.

In the last twenty years, Ken Burns reinvented the "historical" documentary in a way, as has been noted already, to keep an audience riveted for 12+ hours of material.

How about a good word for Spinal Tap?

I'll second Burns with Cousteau not far behind, both leagues ahead of MM.

I was going to say Cousteau, as I remember watching his shows so often as a youth, but I think of him more as an explorer and Burns more as the documentary director. Tough call between both.

Documentaries come in several styles.

Cousteau basically invented the Exploration Documentary. This style, with the camera often in the middle of things and sometimes even described during the documentary, led to the "steadycam" craze, though few have ever mastered the balance of involvement and detachment like Cousteau did.

One of the more interesting offshoots is the Rockumenary/Mockumentary, which uses many of Cousteau's "involved detachment" camera techniques to cover a very different type of event.

Marlon Perkins ("Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom") and several others practiced the Wildlife Documentary as a subset of what Cousteau did, using a more detached camera technique in most cases.

The later nature shows on TV took the Wildlife Documentary and broke the 4th Wall. These include Steve Irwin and David Attenborough in their nature shows, and Michael Palin's travel series.

Then along comes Ken Burns, who invents the Historical Record documentary.

To understand Michael Moore, we have to back up 30+ years and recognize the News Documentary, generally called the "News Magazine" format, as perfected by the '60 Minutes' crew. The line between a News Documentary and "extended-format muck-raking" is rather fuzzy, and '60 Minutes' have crossed it themselves more than a few times, but Moore lives on the muck-raking side of that line full-time. The same film techniques apply regardless. Moore is hardly the best or most successful practitioner of the format, given that 60 Minutes has produced an hour a week for decades AND spawned imitators in the nasty world of TV time-slot competition. Moore's half-dozen 'movies' are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

So is this really a thread about who is the best documentary film maker… or just an excuse to bash Michael Moore… in a way that won't get you sent to the DH?

One of the best documentaries I've seen was called 'Photographer' by Dariusz Jablonski (also called 'Fotoamator'). It featured the snapshots taken by a bureaucrat at one of the Jewish ghettos and offset them against his meticulous accounting records.
I thought 'Shoah' was a pretty great piece of work too.

Even if that were true, how would bashing Michael Moore get me DH'd?

Whatever

I failed to define the differences between "News Documentary" and "extended-format muck-raking" because that line is a very fuzzy one. In many cases it can be pinned to attitude and goal. What is the goal of the piece, and what attitude is projected by the reporter/director/producer in pursuit of that goal?

The common goal is to "inform". Moore often does a decent job of this, frankly, digging into inobvious or opaque information sources to show his audience something they should be told but haven't been.

The attitude Michael Moore brings to his projects is one of an activist, however, not one of a journalist. He isn't doing this solely so you will know, but so that you will be angry about it. Journalists *let* their audience get angry on its own; Moore *encourages* anger. *That* is why he's a muck-raker.

It doesn't disqualify him as a documentarian, however.

I think those are good and fair points, Farstar. I looked up the definition of documentary, and it's defined as a presentation of documents and facts which is presented objectively. My view has been that Moore's not so objective. To me, he's like the Sascha Cohen of documentaries who is more interested in the spectacle of himself and others, rather than really delving into the issues he's exploring (such as identity politics with Cohen).

The parallel to Sascha Cohen occured to me, but I wasn't coming up with a more reasoned example to use as contrast.

More often than not Moore shoots himself in the foot and discredits much of what he tries to bring to the screen.

It doesn't disqualify him [Moore] as a documentarian, however.

No, what disqualifies him is his practice of falsifying the record of events to support whatever agenda he brings to a subject. Moore will change the chronological order of events in his films (implying that events which happened months to years apart are connected by a matter of days), and assert a causal relationship where none existed. He will highlight actions and statements out of context, and deliberately ignore evidence contradictory to his view. He will also stage events for the "shock" effect, and edit out any aspect which might undermine his position. Each of these elements crosses the boundary of what is acceptable in documentary filmmaking, by any standard, regardless of one's political persuasion. Moore is a propagandist; he is more concerned with manipulating his audience into accepting his version of events and his political viewpoint than providing an accurate and honest record of the subject and allowing the audience to draw their own conclusions. To call him a "documentarian" is an insult to the other true documentarians mentioned here.

Richard Attenborough has found a fair bit of success as a documentary maker as well. A whole career's worth.

My hats in the ring for Kevin Brownlow, mostly due to the topics he covers (early film). I still watch "Hollywood – A Celebration of the American Silent Film" (1979) at least once a year – and its a 13 part series. That said, Ken Burns certainly combines eduction with entertainment that I enjoy. And Cousteau brings many fond memoirs of the family actually all watching the same televsion program together (even Dad!). That other guy … well, we'll just leave that be …

Richard Attenborough has found a fair bit of success as a documentary maker as well. A whole career's worth.

That would be his brother David, the naturalist. Richard is an actor and director with a long and distinguished career, but has very little in the documentary field to his credits. Look up his career on IMDB, but be prepared for a lot of "wait, that guy?" moments.

Sir David Attenborough is one of the "4th wall" documentarians I mentioned previously.

[Activist muck-raking] doesn't disqualify him [Moore] as a documentarian, however.

No, what disqualifies him is his practice of falsifying…

No argument there.

Ken Burns will get a lot of votes here, mainly because of his Civil War.

Sir David Attenborough – very worthy and great wild life shows.

I still like Michael Moore for his willingness to p/o the people who like their news 'fair and balanced' or slightly foxed (emote smiley here methinks).

I also liked Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing, who gave us "Jesus Camp" a truly frightening view of the US Christo-facsists.

Michael Moore, while I agree with much of what he writes about, tends to sensationalize. I never saw Bowling for Columbine, but did see an excerpt which purportedly was interviews with people from Toronto who were talking about how they leave their doors open all the time – I swore out loud at this and couldn't believe what I was hearing (I'm in a relatively small city of <200K and when I grew up in the 70s, you could leave your door open, but certainly not since the 80s). This was the biggest load of hogwash I'd ever heard.

There's plenty of truth that can be told about the subject at the centre of his "documentary" without the need for embellishment and downright . I think what really hurts him for the political party that eschews anything Michael Moore is his embellishment. Tell the truth as it is, it's often shocking enough as it is.

I really don't consider him to be a true documentary maker – he's an activist.
--
Tim

I want not to name a single persjon, but the BBC nature department, with Attenborough as head man, they have made so many fantastic documentaries.
I think no other person or company has done more to bring the beuty of nature and life to people all round the world.