The Objective Documentary Myth

Roger Ebert on the nature of documentaries.

A reader writes:

“In your articles discussing Michael Moore’s film ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore’s films, I don’t think they fit the definition of a documentary.”

That’s where you’re wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker’s point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made “Fahrenheit 9/11” for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there’ll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore’s film is partisan. “He doesn’t tell both sides,” we’ll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.

I think this is very important to remember when watching all documentaries, whether they be about politics or the historical Jesus. I remember watching something on the Discovery channel about Jesus that challenged the orthodox view of who he was and how Christianity began. When the program was over the credits rolled and I saw that the documentary had a writer, an editor, a producer, and a director. Somebody made a choice about what scholars were interviewed. Somebody made a choice about what excerpts of their comments were used. Somebody made a choice about what “facts” were included and excluded from the narration. So much for objectivity. This is true of all documentaries and news reports. I have no problem with the idea of “objective truth.” I just don’t believe in human objectivity.

Ebert writes later in his article:

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning “Bowling for Columbine,” until I discovered that some of his “facts” were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

There is a difference I think between a documentary that is an unavoidably subjective look at the “facts” and a work of fiction that intentionally manufactures or distorts the “facts” in order to advance the argument.

Full disclosure: I’ve never seen any of Michael’s Moore’s stuff. The intention of this post is to comment on the larger issue of the nature of documentaries and the myth of objectivity, not on “Fahrenheit 9/11” or the politics of Michael Moore or George Bush.