List top 3 favorite documentaries - Page 2

I'm going to be the echo on King of Kong. Frivolous as the subject matter is, it's a fantastic film. You couldn't ask for a more dramatic and carefully-plotted film if it did actually have a screenplay.

Grizzly Man. Billylove, you really missed something here, and I'm not sure how. I think it might have something to do with your mistaken belief that you're supposed to like the guy. Not the case.

Super Size Me. Yes, the premise is obvious and McDonald's is an easy target. But the way he opens up the film to comment on America's eating habits and attitudes about food and health is very compelling. It's also just monstrously entertaining.

The fact that these are all recent entries is interesting to me. The idea of a documentary being something entertaining is a concept that wasn't much in vogue earlier.

I will disagree and here's why. There's an interesting documentary to be made about our eating habits and the obesity crisis, and it might have been done, but Morgan Spurlock is so goddamn unwatchable. He turns what could've been serious discourse into mugging for the camera. I hear Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden is even worse in this department so I'm glad I decided to avoid that like the plague.

EDIT: This thread has reminded me that after my current Woody Allen-a thon I have to Netflix The Thin Blue Line and American Movie and get them off my LONG list of shame.

1. Crumb - Utterly fascinating, hypnotizing, and perfect.
2. Mondo Cane - It's editing transforms it from a sleazy movie into a masterfully sleazy movie. I can watch this one thousands of times.
3. American Movie - Depressing, inspiring, hilarious, tragic, and endlessly quotable. In love.

King of Kong and Grizzly Man are excellent films, but they both deserve the same criticism: they don't let the footage speak for itself.

King of Kong made me uncomfortable when I was watching it because there are obvious places where it edits and obscures things to stack the deck against Billy Mitchell as the bad guy. They didn't have to do that. He's unlikeable enough on his own. Stuff like the same interview used for characters' reactions at different periods in time. This just gives him ammunition for saying he was mistreated. Read his MTV interviews.

It's like Michael Moore in Roger and Me: wonderful film, why did he have to mess around with the nonfiction chronology? I don't think the benefits in terms of "flow" are worth it.

And Grizzly Man was edited in five days, and it shows it. There's a rebuttal documentary that was on the Discovery channel, I imagine it's on the DVD, where all Treadwell's friends argue against the presentation of him as 'crazy' in the movie. Herzog doesn't care, but it's a weakness the film didn't have to have. Less music and narration and telling us who Treadwell is, more showing.

Home Movie, the followup to American Movie, isn't as involving but is worth watching. It shows an assortment of people talking about their houses. And the second half of Solondz's Storytelling, featuring Mike Schank, is a very angry critique of American Movie.

Best part of the movie: Mark, in his "serious director" mode, instructs Mike to make sure everyone in the assembled cast has brown gloves. Mike takes a beat and turns to the cast, all of whom were within earshot of Mark's request, and says in perfect deadpan, "Everyone got brown gloves?".

Also, shame on myself and everyone else in this thread for forgetting to mention Overnight.

Those aren't flaws or weaknesses. You seem to be making the age-old mistake of confusing the documentary form with news. A documentary is under no obligation whatsoever to report on the truth in an unbiased manner. Its job is to tell a story, just as much as any traditional film. If you want unbiased, unfiltered reporting, go watch...well, there's actually no good example, but you know what I'm saying.

But there's a difference between bias, slanting things one way or another, which is in a lot of documentaries I like, and creating the impression of events happening as they didn't, as the case is with King of Kong, or showing details as opposed to voice-overing them in, as with Grizzly Man. I think in both cases the filmmakers would not have hurt their slant and would have prevented the criticism that followed if they had not allowed themselves to leave things out (in K of K, Wiebe and Mitchell meeting before they "meet," and playing before they "play"; in GM, Treadwell being right about the poachers, after he died, they came back). But I do like both documentaries, I just think they are flaws because viewers think things happen in ways they didn't.

And I'm telling you that they're not flaws, because it doesn't make one bit of crap whether the audience thinks things happened in ways that they didn't. Again, documentaries are not about accurate and factual reporting. They're about storytellling, just like any other movie. If accurately reflecting the facts interfered with telling a good story, the filmmakers were right to alter the presentation. That's not flawed filmmaking; it's what they're supposed to do.

But that's just where you and I differ. When a movie purports to be nonfiction, it has a responsiblity to actually be nonfiction. When telling a better story changes events, it's not a good documentary, according to me. It's a matter of opinion whether or not that is so... I think most people's conception of documentaries involves them not altering reality in major ways.

Streamlining the story is understandable. When it comes to individual documentaries it's a matter of degree, and opinion, as to where they cross the line from that to falsity. For me the changes to Billy Mitchell's story are unfair, because some of them make him look worse, they alter reality. Everybody comes out of the movie hating him, and also thinking that he was given a fair shake, and he wasn't.

3 recent favourites:

Man on Wire - Exhilirating and uplifting, but don't watch it if you suffer from vertigo. The man and his friends are so enjoyable to listen to as well. There is a rebellious spirit to it that seems so lacking today.

Helvetica - a doco about a font! I was unsure going into this but the interviewees (all designers from the mid-20th century onwards) are brilliant. You'll be looking at all the street and shop signs afterwards.

Waltz With Bashir - interesting animated doco, consists of real recorded interviews but animated interviewees, as well as flashback segments. It's about a massacre that took place during the 70s Israel-Syria war, that sneaks up on you due to its beautiful artwork.


All recent stuff, but these three really got me into documentaries in a big way.

That's the audience's problem, not the filmmaker's. And no, this is not a matter of opinion. A documentary is not news. Sorry. As long as the filmmaker doesn't actually alter what's shown, the order and extent of the footage is fair game. The only possible way to give a completely fair treatment to everyone is to show everything that was said. Do you really want to watch a sixteen-hour film about Donkey Kong? When boiling footage down, a decision has to made on where the focus is going to be. If the focus is "this guy is the hero", then the editing has to revolve around that concept.

You need to stick to books, where there's plenty of space to give complete overviews. Movies are too focused on brevity to allow the kind of exhaustive reporting you seem to want.

To build on what Greg said, I'm not sure there could have been a way to present Billy Mitchell as anything other than a jack ass. Perhaps they could have portrayed him as less of a jack ass, but unless the film was employing some state of the art CGI, that dude was a total cock.

Also, I found his fake titty wife creepy and unattractive. As if she was some kind of Dead & Buried zombie emulating the women in Hollywood she read about in US Weekly.

Using the order and extent of the footage to greatly alter viewers' perception of what is shown is the same thing for me.

I'm not arguing for a sixteen hour documentary about Donkey Kong, or that Billy Mitchell is not a jackass. I'm simply saying K of K does its viewers a disservice by altering reality. They think Wiebe had never played Mitchell and he had. And that's a matter of subjective criticism, not an incorrect definition of the word "documentary."

It's not exhaustive reporting to give an accurate representation of one's subjects.

This is what makes documentaries a generally flawed and disingenuous genre.

Great choices. I'd just like to add some love for Hands On A Hard Body, Spellbound, & Decline of Western Civilization.

The film-maker is utilizing a storytelling shorthand, for maximum (and economic) impact. The only way for Mitchell to not look like a dick, is by excising all footage of him. It may approach things from a sensationalistic point of view, but conflict makes good drama in this case. You may see it as unbalanced and biased presentation... I see it as a highlight reel.

There's no way to edit large amounts of footage down to under two hours without altering reality. It's simply impossible. The only way to do that and wind up with a cohesive film is to choose a point of view and go with it. Again, objective truth is an impossible standard for a movie.

That's another way of looking at it, I suppose. King of Kong isn't flawed as a documentary; it's actually a very good example of a flawed genre.

But I said greatly alter. Something kind of resembling objective truth is a possible standard. A less manipulative edit of King of Kong would satisfy my objections.

The Aristocrats
The Bridge (about suicides on the Golden Gate Bridge)
Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred Leuchter (archived footage of Edison electrocuting an elephant!)

And, in all probability, be a less satisfying dramatic structure. If an artist has to choose between truth and art, he should err on the side of art. If you want truth, look out the window. There it is.

My picks:

1. The Fog of War: Robert McNamara reflects on the lessons he learned while getting the US into our previous military fiasco. the Vietnam war.

2. The "Making of" documentary on the Tron DVD. A really interesting overview of Disney in the late 1970's. Also amazing how analog tech was used to bring digital tech to life.

3. The Hellstrom Chronicles; The movie that shows that all puny humankind can do is build cities and cathedrals and compose symphonies, while the lowly ant can lift 10 times it's own weight! Also spawned a great SF novel by Frank Herbert, who also wrote Dune

Many of my choices already mentioned.

Let me second the mention of FOG OF WAR. A great, great glimpse of one of the more intriguing personalities to come out of the cold war. Ya love 'im, ya hate 'im, ya wanna serve him his Ensure...the guy is an emotional and intellectual button pusher and Morris nailed him.

HEARTS OF DARKNESS and BURDEN OF DREAMS are, to me, two halves of the same coin. Except that, in one the lunatic is trying to drag himself up a river, the other he's trying to drag himself over a mountain. I like to show friends who haven't seen either one both together, in a kind of "Insanity of Genius" double feature. DREAMS first, as HEARTS somehow attains an almost life afirming sense quality by it's conclusion. I consider these, in some warped sense, one documentary. As much as I love MY BEST FIEND, for me, BURDEN OF DREAMS is better. Plus with it, it's easy to visualize the great New Yorker article about the making of RESCUE DAWN.

One more I already saw mentioned, JONESTOWN. Unbelievably heartbreaking, I started watching it the first time with my wife and was in tears from just the prologue. Later that night, prepared with tissues and two devil dogs, I screened it alone. I spent years studying the People's Temple and it's role in the nation's cultural history(and after Elvis dying, the Jonestown story was the second most vivid news memory I have of old Roger Grimsby and Bill Beutel.) and was most likely primed more than the average audience member would be, but it's hard to describe the immediacy it brings to a tragedy 30 years and counting in the past, in a nation with a serious short-term memory problem. After the Burns' DONNER PARTY doc, I think this has to be one of the most affecting I've seen.

A real favorite...VISIONS OF LIGHT. Stunning is putting mildly with this one. It's a must for anyone who relishes the complex operation of both the camera and the brain of the cinematographer. Vittorio Storaro steals the show. I had the sheer luck to catch this at the Forum when the world could still handle movie theaters turning out all the lights in a auditorium.

Thanks everyone for your suggestions, you guys have given me some real good docs to search for.

 

I'll add my 3-even though its quite difficult to narrow it down to just 3:

 

-King of Kong (enough has been said on this one, so I'll move on)

 

-Bowling for Columbine. Though I don't always agree with Michael Moore's politics even with things in this doc. its a fascinating look at America's propensity for violence and ultimate deisre to maintain their 'right to keep and bear arms'. I've seen most of his docs and I think this is his best.  

 

-Man on Wire. If you've ever thought that there are those out there that are so committed to their craft they border on insane, this is it. The acrobatic Frenchman who in the early 1970s decided to do the unbelievable and walk on a tightrope between the Twin Towers. This doc shows the events leading up to this feat with the principle figures involved. Watch this doc, it will not disappoint.    

I think mine might just be Rize, Dog Town & Z-Boys and When We Were Kings.

Waco The Rules of Engagement -

 

Academy Award nominated. From Moriarty Drew McWeeny on July 4th 2000 listing Waco as one of the ten best films of America.

" The exact opposite of ROCKY, this is the truth that none of us want to embrace, but one that cannot be ignored if we are to understand exactly what world it is we live in. William Gazecki’s Oscar-nominated 1997 film will make you angry. There’s no way it won’t. It has to make you angry, because it is as unbiased and as meticulous a piece of documentary work as I have seen. It uses facts, documentation, evidence, and it paints a persuasive picture that points to one unavoidable fact: we, the American public, were lied to in a willful and knowing manner by a small group of federal authorities who committed mass murder on a group of innocent people. If you believe anything else, you are wrong. A landslide of information has led to constant, ongoing investigations since the release of this film, and new information continues to come to light.All of it reinforces this film’s conclusions, only making it more infuriating to watch today. The importance of this film is almost too much weight for any film to bear, and I’m sure there are detractors who will attack this choice and this picture in the forum below. I understand. It’s terrifying to be confronted with proof that your government will lie to you if need be, and they will kill you if need be. It’s horrifying to realize that every paranoid fantasy that Hollywood has spun about the intelligence community has a basis in fact, that abuse on a massive level is possible. The only thing that allows me to continue to sleep at night is that this information is available, and there’s more where this came from. This action wasn’t accomplished in a dark alley or a quiet warehouse where no one saw. The American people may have been fooled into believing that Koresh and his followers were a suicide cult, and the story may still have its supporters today, but there’s proof available, and in a media age, maybe it’s possible that we can turn the harsh glare of public knowledge on these events and others like them. Maybe these murders will not be forgotten. Maybe there is still a dream of justice, no matter how tattered. I hope so, and it’s that hope that I celebrate today. "

 

 

Roger Ebert

 

Of course I am aware that ``Waco'' argues its point of view, and that there is no doubt another case to be made. What is remarkable, watching the film, is to realize that the federal case has not been made. Evidence has been ``lost,'' files and reports have ``disappeared,'' tapes have been returned blank, participants have not testified and the ``crime scene,'' as a Texas Ranger indignantly testifies, was not preserved for investigation, but razed to the ground by the FBI--presumably to destroy evidence.

The film is persuasive because: 1. It presents testimony from both sides, and shies away from cheap shots. We feel we are seeing a fair attempt to deal with facts.

2. Those who attack the government are not simply lawyers for the Branch Davidians or muckraking authors (although they are represented) but also solid middle-American types like the county sheriff, the district Texas Rangers, the FBI photographer on the scene, and the man who developed and patented some of the equipment used by the FBI itself to film devastating footage that appears to show its agents firing into the buildings--even though the FBI insists it did not fire a single shot.

 

What is clear, no matter which side you believe, is that during the final deadly FBI raid on the buildings, a toxic and flammable gas was pumped into the compound even though women and children were inside. ``Tear gas'' sounds innocent, but this type of gas could undergo a chemical transformation into cyanide, and there is a pitiful shot of an 8-year-old child's body bent double, backward, by the muscular contractions caused by cyanide.

What comes through strongly is the sense that the attackers were ``boys with toys.'' The film says many of the troops were thrilled to get their hands on real tanks. Some of the law-enforcement types were itching to ``stop standing around.'' One SWAT team member boasts he is ``honed to kill.'' Nancy Sinatra's ``These Boots Are Made for Walking'' was blasted over loudspeakers to deprive those inside of sleep (the memory of that harebrained operation must still fill the agents with shame).

When the time came, on April 19, 1993, the agents were apparently ready to rock 'n' roll. Heat-sensitive films taken by the FBI and interpreted by experts seem to show FBI agents firing into the compound, firing on an escape route after the fires were started, and deliberately operating on the side of the compound hidden from the view of the press. No evidence is presented that those inside started fires or shot themselves. Although many dead Davidians were indeed found with gunshot wounds, all of the bullets and other evidence has been impounded by the FBI.

Whatever happened at Waco, these facts remain: It is not against the law to hold irregular religious beliefs. It is not illegal to hold and trade firearms. It is legal to defend your own home against armed assault, if that assault is illegal. It is impossible to see this film without reflecting that the federal government, from the top down, treated the Branch Davidians as if those rights did not apply.

 

http://www.chud.com/community/forum/thread/121454/waco-the-rules-of-engagement

 

One Day In September - Winner Best Documentary 1999  From Roger Ebert " In a film filled with startling charges, the most shocking is that the three captured terrorists escaped from custody as part of a secret deal with the German government, which essentially wanted the whole matter to be over with. A German aircraft was hijacked by Palestinians, who demanded that the three prisoners be handed over, which they were, with "indecent haste." The film says the plane suspiciously contained only 12 passengers, none of them women or children; now Jamal Al Gashey confirms it was a setup. "

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0230591/

 

Loose Change Final Cut

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914809/

Available free to watch at Google video

 

Endgame Blueprint for Global Enslavement

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135489/

Available free to watch at Google video

Dear Zachary: A Letter To A Son About His Father is the best documentary I've ever seen, hands-down.  That film will get into your head and your heart in a way that you won't even see coming.  Just devastating. 

Oh yeah! Great movie, and great example of the unreliability of the documentary film as a form. Witness Darby Crash's interview where he's hanging out in a cozy little kitchen with a girl we're lead to believe is his girlfriend, but was really just a random girl from the scene he had appear with him onscreen so people wouldn't know he was gay. The Fear live footage is hilarious too.

 

My favorite Herzog documentary is Lessons of Darkness, because more so than any of his other films it give the impression of having been made by an alien with no frame of reference for contextualizing human behavior. So rad.

Recently got a chance to see Senna on netflix....damn. What a great documentary on perhaps the greatest driver in the history of motorsports.

I wish Wasn't That a Time! was more readily available.

 

For All Mankind

 

Sherman's March

Great stuff in here!  Others I liked: Darkon & Lost in La Mancha.

Darkon was surprisingly touching.  As was Confessions of a Superhero.  There's both an inherent sadness and a undercurrent of hope to both of them.

1) Encounters at the End of the World

 

2) Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills

 

3) In the Realms of the Unreal: The Mystery of Henry Darger

No ones given a shoutout yet to the most emotionally and in some ways disturbing documentary I've ever seen, Capturing The Freidmans.

 

Holy shit that film.

Friedmans didn't disturb me as much as I thought it would because of all the hype that preceded it.  Still pretty powerful, though.

 

In a weird coincidence, I was watching Waco: The Rules of Engagement this morning. Gripping stuff.

 

Hoop Dreams deserves more than a couple of brief mentions. Still one of the best films I've ever seen.

 

Also, a shout out to The Kid Stays In The Picture. Ridiculously entertaining.

This & the 2006 doc Deliver Us From Evil. Two films that are as disturbing & rage-inducing as they are crucially important documents.

 

Thanks for the reminder to watch this.  Glad to hear that it's good.

 

Other ones:

'Rush: Behind the Lighted Stage'.  Even if you don't like their music, you'll like this bio.  It's entertaining as hell.

'Collapse'.  It'll make you want to stock up on canned food and shotgun shells.

 

Definately Heart of Darkness and When We Were Kings.  Especially When We Were Kings, I love so much about that flick.

 

Other than that I recenly watched 'Outfoxed - Ruper Murdoch's War on Journalism' which was amazing.