On Apr 18, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Nick Andrews wrote: > Just like Michael Moore trying to make a documentary? Or Oliver > Stone? Except Oliver Stone has made a few good movies.
Moore's films are only documentaries in one sense, he's documenting stuff he wants to show the audience. He's an advocacy film maker, an unapologetic one, and often people mistake "documentary" for "objective." They usually aren't. If someone does a documentary on starvation in Africa, it's hardly "objective," but that doesn't make it a bad documentary. What Moore does that pisses people off so much is show things in a very nasty light for some people and gloss over things about other people that should be noted. With Moore and some other documentary film makers like Spike Lee for example, the slant is so obvious some people call their films "docu-ganda" or "shockumentary" or "exploitation documentary." The only real question is simply "did they do a good job presenting their point of view?" More's hit and miss. Anyway, Oliver Stone has always had a political point-of-view. Even if JFK has almost zero basis historically, it's still a pretty compelling movie. Wall Street, Platoon, Salvador, and Born on the Forth of July were compelling film making. Alexander was flawed but interesting, as was Money Never Sleeps and Any Given Sunday. Best, R.E.F. ---- www.crydee.com Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity.
