I’ve been watching Michael Moore’s most recent documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story on-and-off for awhile on Netflix. It’s entertaining in a way, knowing full well that Mr. Moore is essentially a brand name for modern American liberalism and that invariably the documentary would appeal to likewise minded individuals and bewilder and appall others; in a sense, I sort of know what to expect – that the film that highlights the downfalls of capitalism, many of which I know full well of – yet at the same time, it’s interesting to see and dissect how he frames his argument and how he uses emotional appeal to win over the viewer’s attention and sympathy. It is, in a sense, almost a narrative in itself – enlightening, entertaining, and emotional, yet still very much rooted in the relevance of current global issues. While mulling over this, a thought popped up in my head: at what point does a documentary about a controversial subject become biased, and what is the ultimate responsibility of a documentary filmmaker?
This thought is a residual fragment from a lengthy discussion I had with some nuclear engineer students – undergraduates and graduates – back in March this year after watching the french documentary Déchets: Le Cauchemar du Nucléaire, translated “Waste: The Nightmare of Nuclear.” The synopsis of the film is this:
Nuclear power is not without risks, its Achilles heel being nuclear waste. People are afraid of it, scientists cannot find an acceptable solution to the problem, industry companies are trying to reassure us and politicians avoid talking about it altogether.
But what do we really know about nuclear waste? How can people have a clear vision of something that has always been shrouded in secrecy?
Looking at the cases of France, Germany, the United States, and Russia, this scientific and political report explores the taboo subject of nuclear power, particularly the darkest aspect of the latter. In seeking “the truth about waste,” this film aims to provide, for the very first time, the keys to understanding the choices which weigh heavily on the future of humanity.
If it’s not already obvious, the documentary was heavily anti-nuclear anything. The interview subjects were often unable to answer framed questions, and the footage showed devastating results of poor regulation and exceptionally poor safety inspections. In short: it was a very, very unflattering portrait of field that has received flack and a bad name post-WWII.
I participated in the discussion afterwards, which was enlightening, thoughtful, and calmly passionate; in fact, the most heated response I heard was that the film “is pure propaganda.” The moderator – a graduate student in nuclear engineering – did an excellent job in asking specific questions, like why certain footage was chosen, how questions were asked, and most importantly how statistics and technical aspects were explained (if at all), presented, and if they were put into context. I felt the filmmakers were being irresponsible by framing information in a way that favored their assessment – that nuclear is bad – instead of being holistic and putting data into context. It was almost as if the filmmakers picked and chose what they thought sounded “bad” and splashed it on screen with foreboding expositions and emphasis on choice words; the film would have made a much more powerful statement if they had instead tried to do further research to understand the full extent of the technical aspects and clarify them for public understanding – instead, it only muddled public understanding of nuclear energy even further, piling anti-nuclear hippies against cold cut corporate heads.
Thinking about it now, I still agree with my statement back then, but am unsure as to how one assesses the true validity and bias of a documentary on a subject they may not completely understand or know about. However, I think there are always a few key characteristics to look for if you want to get a hint of where the filmmaker may be coming from:
- Adjectives are an absolute key. The choice words the filmmaker chooses to narrate the information and what’s going on are so personal that any non-neutral term (i.e. horrendous, petty, beautiful, dubious, malicious) is like a giant billboard of neon lights indicating editorializing. It doesn’t matter if you do or don’t agree with the viewpoint – editorializing indicates an objective on the filmmakers part that is otherwise not completely neutral.
- Are personal, non-professional stories included? And if so, why? Oftentimes these interviews and segment create a much more human story that a viewer can sympathize with and connect the overarching subject of the documentary to. While these are emotionally effective, they may not necessarily be an objective lens into what the filmmaker wants you to understand; in a sense, seeing emotionally driven stories puts everything into context, though editorializing is invariable given the nature of these segment (I’d argue that this kind of editorializing is necessary to an extent; no one wants to watch a documentary that’s cold cut turkey tryptophan).
- Who and which professionals are being interviewed, what are their qualifications, and what occupation do they work in? At this point, during the viewing you either know or you don’t know who the people are (though I think it’s invaluable to look them up afterwards to see how the filmmaker could have possibly framed their answers differently). It’s also important to see what relevance the individuals have (beyond what the filmmaker narrates).
- How and what questions are being asked, and whom are they being addressed to? One of the biggest issues I had with Déchets: Le Cauchemar du Nucléaire was a segment where the filmmakers interviewed a PR guy for a company on questions that were out of his field, and nonetheless asked him in a field rather than an office. Of course he looked terrible – who wouldn’t be if you were probed with questions that weren’t part of your expertise and in an environment you’re not even familiar with? Additionally, the way questions are framed and phrased are incredibly important because they have multiple implications regarding the interviewer and the interviewee: for instance, whenever I see make up commercials saying things like “make yourself more beautiful,” I can’t help but think they’re telling all the women in the world that their product will make them “less ugly” – it’s the same exact idea, yet the framing and phrasing create completely different effects.
- And most importantly – is the purpose of the documentary explicit or implicit? I feel this is extremely important to consider because it brings to question the validity of a documentary that, for all its evidence and research, has a specific goal in mind that can either directly or indirectly affect viewers’ perceptions and understanding of the subject after watching the film.
Let’s take, for instance, the recent clusterf*ck of British Petroleum in the Gulf: they are unequivocally at fault for everything – horrendous safety inspections, failing to meet regulation standards – and I was appalled by the money they funneled into positive PR commercials instead actually cleaning up the Gulf as thousands of marine fauna and flora died; yet realistically, I can’t paint BP as a wholly evil corporation – like other corporations, they’ve donated money to universities for energy research, and whether or not you agree with such donations and grants all universities need money to run ship shape research facilities; otherwise the money runs out and the university can’t support itself (it must be noted that after Reagan slashed budgets to universities during his presidency, public universities such as the University of California had to resort to the Yale model in order to keep funding themselves – thus began the inflation of tuitions and growing needs for student loans). Another documentary that I’ve yet to see, The Cove, is about the annual killing of dolphins at Taiji, Wakayama, Japan, and based solely off the commercials, I can already tell that it’s very heavily anti-dolphin-hunting; and while I share this sentiment, I worry a bit that the film itself will be too heavily skewed that I may begin questioning its validity at large (this pure speculation: I’ll need to see the film in order to make my full assessment).
In short: there are always two sides to the story. Personally, I think the most effective documentaries are ones that do not explicitly state their thesis and position on the subject matter, instead relying solely on the viewer’s ability to infer and digest the information presented in a level-headed, even-handed manner – that is, with minimum editorializing as possible. The best example I can think of so far is the award-winning PBS documentary Unnatural Causes: Is Inequality Making us Sick? I admire this documentary not only because of the ideas it presented – which are revolutionary and still mind boggling – but that it introduces us to a question rather than an assertion. And while the premise is that socioeconomic and racial differences contribute to outcomes of health the film does so in a way that it piques our interest (“there’s something else that contributes to poor health?”) and allows us to see the full extent of the theories: from racism to occupations to social stigmas, the presented data, interview subjects and personal stories are so thorough that by the end of it, you can’t help but wonder what other factors we simply take for granted in life as we know it. Most impressive is that its main idea – that there are unnatural causes contributing to poor health – is very much implicit and inferred rather than in-your-face; it allows the film to maintain a holistic point of view while simultaneously presenting an argument that could be argued for and against.
It’s always difficult to assess the validity of anything these days: we’ve got nice politicians posting “refudiate” here and there, and some nice TV commentators spewing about walls of insanity they manage to past through on occasion, skeptics who go by their gut feeling to determine that anything can be false – hell, the whole “how do you know that you know that you know that you know” argument becomes a endless whirlwind of who’s right and who’s wrong, etcetera etcetera. These days, it’s so much easier to label everything right and wrong, black and white, blue and red, left and right, hippie and redneck, ceiling cat and Maru – the gray in betweens, the subtle nuances of discourse and discussion that doesn’t involve party animals of tea or proving Godwin’s law again has become like a lost art in this era of digitalization and twitterifying. I think it’s important to look at the gray areas, the areas of uncertainty and discussion and discourse, and to try and be holistic in the scheme of things – even if it means additional research and trying to learn a bit more about things outside your field of expertise (for instance, I have recently begun directing some more mental power towards why a raven is like a writing desk). And given all the hype about 2010 being a terrific year for documentaries, I feel that trying to assess the validity of an argument and presentation – whether or not we agree with it – is all the more important now. We’re in the internet age of Google and Wikipedia, so there’s really no excuse on any of our parts – unless, of course, you are a cat, then you can get away with pretty much anything.
Documentary Films I’d Like to See (feel free to leave me any recommendations in the contact form or comments!)
• Man on Wire
• The King of Kong
• March of the Penguins
• Food, Inc.
• The 11th Hour
• I.O.U.S.A.
• Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
• Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price
• Monty Python: Almost the Truth
• Waking Sleeping Beauty
• Unmistaken Child
• Can Mr. Smith Get to Wasington Anymore?
• The Devil Came on Horseback
• Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
• Michael Jackson’s This Is It
• The September Issue
• The Cove
• Exit Through the Giftshop
• Catfish
• Freakonomics
• Inside Job
• A Film Unfinished
• Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work
• The Tillman Story
• Encounters at the End of the World
• Sicko
• Jesus Camp
• Murderball
• Daughter from Đà Nẫng
• Sound and Fury
• Last Train Home
Recommended Article