Michael Moore and the Re-Birth of the Documentary

Abstract

Michael Moore and the Re-Birth of the Documentary Steven Mintz The most stunning development in movies in the early twenty-first century is the surging popularity of the documentary. In 2004, box office receipts might have declined had it not been for documentaries, which grossed over $170 million. Seven of the all-time Top 10 grossing documentaries were released in 2003 and 2004, and 18 of the 25 most profitable political documentaries were released since 2002. Historically, documentaries were box office poison, and most Americans spelled documentary d-u-l-l. What accounts for this sudden change? Was it simply a matter of temporary circumstances connected with the 2004 presidential election? Or were deeper forces at work? And what is Michael Moore's role in the surging popularity of the documentary? Any serious attempt to answer these questions requires us to look at fundamental changes in production, distribution, exhibition, and audience. Partly, changes in audience sensibilities account for documentaries' growing appeal. Even as fantasy films based on cartoon characters and children's books multiplied, there was a craving for authenticity evident in the popularity of reality shows. Unlike plastic, emotionless, seemingly interchangeable movie stars, reality shows featured untutored actors who are eccentric and highly individualistic. But reality shows may have had a deeper impact by increasing the audiences' comfort with "post-modern" cross-cutting narratives, multiple points of view, and lower production values. Changes on the supply side have also contributed to the growing popularity of documentaries. Much as the rise of television in the 1950s left a void that was filled by youth-oriented radio, the declining appeal of foreign films and lower production costs created an opening for documentaries. At the same time, public television and a proliferation of cable channels created a stable market for documentary filmmakers. Not only have these venues allowed filmmakers to hone their skills, but also they have encouraged a proliferation of documentary genres. Non-fiction films long assumed a variety of forms, ranging from network white papers to Frederick Wiseman's direct cinema. But recent years have brought new forms, including IMAX films, concert films, and even mockumentaries, like This is Spinal Tap and A Mighty Wind. Especially influential have been three relatively recent innovations. First, there were Ken Burns-like documentaries, with [End Page 10] their solemn talking heads, their grainy, nostalgic archival footage, and their earnest, even dirge-like tone. There were also news documentaries, like PBS's Frontline series, which were much more willing than their network predecessors to engage in political controversy. Meanwhile, Errol Morris pioneered the reflexive post-modern personal essay, which combined drama, comedy, philosophic meditation, interviews, and a surreal style. And finally there was an emerging genre that might be called "docutainment," the treatment of non-fiction topics using all the tools of high production feature films, including animation, fast-motion photography, graphics, montage, and rock music. Michael Moore has been the central figure in the rise of docutainment. He created a persona—the unsophisticated working class stiff who revels in his amateurishness and his sophomoric sensibility—which audiences, at least those on the left, have found highly entertaining. His films were opinionated, satirical, and unapologetically political, and much of their appeal lay in their attraction of the gadfly who thumbs his nose at powerful elites. Yet for all their antics, pranks, and cheap shots his films also had a serious side, engaging in a powerful form of unmasking, laying bare realities that had been hidden or repressed, whether this was the impact of deindustrialization on the residents of a decaying rust-belt city or the collateral damage that is inflicted on civilians in wartime. Michael Moore's films raise, in extreme form, two issues posed by many recent documentaries. The first involves the documentary filmmaker's obligation to be objective and balanced. Only the willfully naïve fail to recognize that the documentary tradition has always involved argument and opinion. By their very choice of subject and their selection of what materials to include and exclude, documentary filmmakers shape the presentation of their subject and therefore convey a political perspective, in the term's broadest sense. It is Moore's skill as...