That documentary was great. It reminded me of a real life version of Rashomon.
I did not see the documentary in question. BUT...there will always be 'the human viewpoint' in documentaries. IN the case of Farenheit 9/11 you have the (unambiguous, as you pointed out) views of Michael Moore. But the Swift Boat Veterans made a documentary. In each case, the views are those of the creator. (or creators) Not right, not wrong...just human.
I have become increasingly disenchanted with such things. But then again, perhaps the 'documentary' you are talking about served a purpose - it reminded you that there are many points of view to a story. And, just as they may all be right, they may also all be wrong.
It's a remarkable movie. You might say it was the documentaries to end all documentaries.
You might say it was the documentaries to end all documentaries.
Oh, but surely it is not! It is, if anything, paving the road for a new generation of documentaries, like Shoah did in its day; by allowing itself to be blatantly subjective it is somehow countering the main accusation directed at documentaries: that they always have a hidden agenda, a pre-conceived conclusion that they aim towards. Fahrenheit 9/11 does not have a hidden, but a displayed agenda, and the agenda itself is much more important than any other part of the film.
Now I've gotta see it.
HBO showed a documentary about a retarded man who lived with his aging parents. The time came when the parents couldn't manage any longer, and they helped him make the transition to a group home.
I wish I could see this once again. It was beautifully done and highlighted most delicately the depth of love in that one small family.
I watch a lot of documentaries- when it comes to TV they're what I mainly watch- but it's very rare that one sticks in my memory.
But surely the subjectivity of documentaries is nothing new or shocking. They can never be anything but an edited and interpreted version of the story. The more honest documentaries will themselves point out the lack of absolute truth in them, whereas others will neglect to point this out in order to emphasise a certain point. Some, maybe the most honest of all, will show us a fractured, splintered mess, which is, surely, the most real type of documentary.
If understanding comes at the price of simplification, perhaps an incomprehensible documentary will sometimes show us the world in a truer way, creating an approxiation to objectivity through a plethoral poly-subjectivity.
I can't think of any other documentary which does quite what this one does- give us a pile of contradictory materials and defy us to make sense of them. Usually there's a guiding hand, a sense that the truth is out there somewhere. Capturing The Friedman's is about the impossibility of ever knowing the truth. By highlighting the untrustworthiness of its talking heads it undermines all those earlier documentaries, including Shoah, which implicitly rely on us believing what interviewees say.
I haven't seen the documentary in question, but at last years CPH DOCS Documentary Film Festival there seemed to be a trend towards more fragmented, kaleidoscopic documentaries with no on true conclusion. "The uncertainty principle" seems finally to have broken through to documentaries...
As for Shoah I don't really think it asks us to believe the testamonies in a conventional way. It wants to shock, strike us with awe, not only at the stories told, but also at the film itself. It is still among the documentaries that have pointed most clearly at their own representation of history; clearly being stylistical and "arty", and thus inviting us to not only take in the various stories, but the film itself. Had it been a conventional documentary it would probably not have pushed the limits quite so far (e.g. in the director's rather brutal interview style), nor would it have been quite so long. Shoah was not meant to convey a message, a truth; it was, indeed, more of a piece of art than a piece of historical evidence or research. By chosing to make it 8-9 hours long (I forget exactly how long, but gosh it's long...) the director has made it clear that he does not want to convey anything to the general public. One might say it is a rather elitist tour de force...
I don't think I ever saw Shoah all the way through. What I remember of it are the wintry Polish landscapes. I forget what the witnesses had to say, but I remember the look and the feel of the places where they were filmed.
i agree with sorenr. the subjectivity of documentaries is neither new nor shocking. but i think this is less a matter of honest documentary vs misleading documentary. the trend in documentary film over the years has been towards a widening of voices, moving away from "representing an other" and towards "collaborating with the other". we've come a long way since nanook of the north. along with this shift has come the realization that no one voice or perspective is right, or accurate, or more worthy of representation. for example, timothy asch's 1975 film The Axe Fight documents asch's attempt to piece together the reasons behind an axe fight between members of an amazon tribe, but everyone he interviews has a different explanation for the fight. capturing the friedmans is sort of a continuation of this trend.
I wouldn't disagree.
In the light of Capturing the Friedmans conventional documentaries stand accused, not so much of dishonesty, as of naivety.
I keep seeing TV documentaries that claim to be able to reconstruct historical events on the basis of eye witness accounts.
For instance there was one the other day that reconstructed the exact trajectory of the Red Baron's plane on the day he died. They interviewed an elderly but sprightly Australian bloke who'd never spoken about it in public before but claimed he was the man to whom Von Richthofen addressed his dying words. Er- yes- right....