I enjoy Morgan Spurlock’s films for what they are, though I’ve never considered the man a legit documentary filmmaker. Much like Michael Moore his films are too steeped in perspective to retain unbias journalistic integrity. And of course both men are seemingly predisposed to making themselves the stars of their respective works.
Which leads me to wonder if Spurlock will still be present in front of the camera for his latest documentary: a 3D film chronicling the world tour of popular boy band One Direction. More important than asking what one direction is, is asking why. An English-Irish assembly of five goofy looking tweens in goofy looking clothes, they seem to be next in line to assume Justin Bieber’s “Dainty, Unthreatening Teen Idol” mantle.
Speaking of Bieber, the obvious comparison here is that singer’s Never Say Never 3D film from Paramount. Footed by TriStar, this new doc will be co-produced by Spurlock and Simon Cowell, who discovered the band on the British version of X-Factor.
Spurlock attempted to confront the corporate machine in Super Size Me. Are we now watching the filmmaker get assimilated by it?
8 comments
This is a head-scratcher of the highest order.
Depending on the subject and the angle, Documentaries are not required to be unbiased to be “real” documentaries. Really, any documentary presents a bias purely based on deciding which facts and truths to highlight; some, obviously, are more successful than others (and to parse it even further, some hide the seams better than others). Personally, I feel there are two types of documentaries: Observational Documentaries, which present a (usually historical or nature-based) subject in a plain light, whose main purpose is to inform, and Editorial Documentaries, which are usually based around current events or issues and while not fabricated, is slanted either through staging or editing to present the director’s opinion (and whose main point is to provoke discussion one way or another). Editorializing still has journalistic value, and there are those that do it poorly, but the angle isn’t less worthy than the former.
They look like the Brood.
The alien species the X-men first encountered in Uncanny X-men 155?
Documentaries are never meant to unbias, they are meant to portray a specific perspective that shows a view of the world. To say they are unbias pieces of journalism, completely minimizes the whole process. We look to documentaries to be bias, to show a unique perspective on the world and tell us something different. There success as a film ultimately shapes how we think of the subject. The problem with Moore and Spurlock is that they are brands that mask a lack of good documentary filmaking. Spurlock has never tried to evolve as a filmaker or documentarian- he is stuck promoting his brand.
Less Stan The Man. More Dave Deprave.
Maybe so, Tim, but he’s still better than Doug Benson.
I invoke the Christopher Walken Rule: Everybody’s got a mortgage to pay.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.