Hi Bob - sorry for taking so long to respond. The broken links were caused by my weblog software completely crapping out shortly after I posted here. The original links will now work, but your summary is fine.
Frankly, Wood doesn't know the history of documentary.
And I'm not sure why he would quote a pr exec who worked for
1-800-GOT-JUNK? and is only 27 (not that there aren't young
people who understand docs).
Too many people (which sadly includes far too many
journalists and critics) don't understand there is more
than one genre of documentary.
Documentaries don't have to be in the tradition
format with a voice of god narrator.
Moore's films are personal essay films which
have a long history and never have had to be "balanced."
Others are are less personal, but are political essays.
The question isn't whether these films are documentaries,
but whether they are good documentaries and whether
they are effective at getting their message across.
And there are bad documentaries which can be good
organizing tools while there are good docs which
may be too complex, too personal, or too indiosyncratic
to be effective politically. People need to look
critically at any kind of media.
I was watching Criterion's new DVD of Harlan Country, USA
which is a great documentary more than decade older
than Roger & Me (as well as very different) which tells
a story, a story which wasn't being told, from the
perspective of the subjects.
Imagine if the Republican Party was going to sponsor a similar effort with a library group. Silly to think that their agenda would not screw up the library.
Technorati is an index!!
The fact that there has not been more outrage over Edelman's move just underscores how insulated and naïve PR bloggers can be. That's sad.
- Amanda Chapel
Hi Bob - sorry for taking so long to respond. The broken links were caused by my weblog software completely crapping out shortly after I posted here. The original links will now work, but your summary is fine.
My apologies for any confusion.
Regards, Grant
Frankly, Wood doesn't know the history of documentary.
And I'm not sure why he would quote a pr exec who worked for
1-800-GOT-JUNK? and is only 27 (not that there aren't young
people who understand docs).
Too many people (which sadly includes far too many
journalists and critics) don't understand there is more
than one genre of documentary.
Documentaries don't have to be in the tradition
format with a voice of god narrator.
Moore's films are personal essay films which
have a long history and never have had to be "balanced."
Others are are less personal, but are political essays.
The question isn't whether these films are documentaries,
but whether they are good documentaries and whether
they are effective at getting their message across.
And there are bad documentaries which can be good
organizing tools while there are good docs which
may be too complex, too personal, or too indiosyncratic
to be effective politically. People need to look
critically at any kind of media.
I was watching Criterion's new DVD of Harlan Country, USA
which is a great documentary more than decade older
than Roger & Me (as well as very different) which tells
a story, a story which wasn't being told, from the
perspective of the subjects.
http://criterionco.com/asp/release.asp?id=334
http://ari.typepad.com blog
http://flickr.com/photos/ari/ photos
http://del.icio.us/tigerbeat interesting articles & sites
Lots of smart people become academics, engineers, lawyers, doctors and bankers.
And, more recently, lots of ambitious people have entered the computer field.
I bet, to some degree, all other professions suffer when smart people do something else, including government service.
http://SATP.blogspot.com
Pages