Moore is Less

For the life of me, I cannot understand the appeal of Michael Moore. While his "documentary" style may be funny and entertaining (to some), one hardly learns anything new from him.

His first success was 1989's Roger and Me (centering on GM factory closings in Flint, MI). There he pioneered his style of focusing on himself and acting smug while accosting people with his camera. The fact that there isn't a good way to say "no comment" on film shouldn't be confused with insight.

Two example of documentaries that get it "right" are The Thin Blue Line and The Trials of Henry Kissinger. These works have DEFINITE points of view and present their respective material in a manner that challenges and enlightens, but does not preach or mock.

The Thin Blue Line

The real tragedy of Moore's assent, is that a true artist of the documentary genre, Errol Morris, still toils in comparative obscurity.

When I saw The Thin Blue Line in 1988, I was blown away by everything from the production design and visual style to the haunting Phillip Glass musical score.

The film centers on the conviction of Randall Adams in 1976 for the murder of a Dallas policeman despite the fact that most (if not ALL) of the evidence pointed to a friend of Adams, David Harris.

The thesis Morris develops is that because the Dallas prosecutor wanted to make a strong statement to the community regarding the crime (shades of Mike Nifong) and Daivd Harris was too young to receive the death penalty, he went after Adams.

Morris had Originally planned to do a documentary on the death-row doctor at the prison where Adams was incarcerated. Nicknamed "Doctor Death," it was this physician's job to determine the mental competency of condemned men before their execution. Morris wanted to explore the fact that Doctor Death NEVER deemed anyone "incompetent" (hence the nickname). However, after listening to Adams tell his tale, he decided to change topics.

The movie was credited for getting Adams conviction reversed.

The Trials of Henry Kissinger

A good companion piece to this, would be The Trials of Henry Kissinger (2002).

The film is based on a book by Christopher Hitchens, who, interestingly enough, has come under fire of his own for the supporting the Iraq war AND writing a book celebrating atheism (what a combination!). As listed in the IMDB, TToHK "focuses on Henry Kissinger and his role in America's secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969, the approval of Indonesia's genocidal assault on East Timor in 1975, the assassination of a Chilean general in 1970, and his involvement in the 1969 Paris peace talks concerning the Vietnam Conflict."

Jarecki's opinion of Kissinger is VERY clear. Yet, he makes every effort to be even handed about it.

For instance, while Kissinger (understandably) did not agree to be interviewed for the documentary, whenever a point against him is made, Jarecki does his best to include archive footage of Kissinger from different venues addressing that issue.

There are no ambush interviews with camera people rushing Kissinger and peppering him with questions in a manner that NONE of us would stand for.

I'm neither inclined to be a death penalty foe or a knee-jerk supporter of the "peace movement," yet each film affected my views on their respective topics. A testament to the talents of the artists involved.