On documentaries
Feb. 23rd, 2010 06:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
giveamouseI don't know if this is a common pattern for documentaries, but I've noticed it in two that I've seen so far: An Inconvenient Truth, and Food, Inc.
The documentary spends so much of its time getting its point across, and making its arguments, that it really motivates a sense of impending doom and hopelessness. Now, I understand that what they're trying to express is the importance of the topic, and the need of individuals and institutions to deal with the problems discussed, but they really leave the viewer with the message that Something Must Be Done, without spending much time at all discussing and evaluating the actions that can be taken.
I think it's appropriate to ignore the last 30 seconds of both movies, where they use a little text and music to give a short list of what can be done. The entire rest of the film is designed to inspire outrage. Unless that outrage is given a specific direction to go in, it can contribute to a sense that nothing can be done and that the situation is hopeless. The endings, which completely fail at changing the tone of the rest of the movies, seem like a pretty feeble token gesture of giving direction to the outrage inspired.
But that's not the worst problem, which I can't really blame on the documentaries themselves... I worry that giving a bad review could be interpreted as disagreement with the content and arguments, rather than with how well it does at being a useful device for communicating.
I can criticize an action movie for not having enough action. Can I criticize a documentary without it being assumed that I'm disagreeing with it? Not without a disclaimer.
I suppose that's okay. I have more practice giving disclaimers than I have at making arguments.
The documentary spends so much of its time getting its point across, and making its arguments, that it really motivates a sense of impending doom and hopelessness. Now, I understand that what they're trying to express is the importance of the topic, and the need of individuals and institutions to deal with the problems discussed, but they really leave the viewer with the message that Something Must Be Done, without spending much time at all discussing and evaluating the actions that can be taken.
I think it's appropriate to ignore the last 30 seconds of both movies, where they use a little text and music to give a short list of what can be done. The entire rest of the film is designed to inspire outrage. Unless that outrage is given a specific direction to go in, it can contribute to a sense that nothing can be done and that the situation is hopeless. The endings, which completely fail at changing the tone of the rest of the movies, seem like a pretty feeble token gesture of giving direction to the outrage inspired.
But that's not the worst problem, which I can't really blame on the documentaries themselves... I worry that giving a bad review could be interpreted as disagreement with the content and arguments, rather than with how well it does at being a useful device for communicating.
I can criticize an action movie for not having enough action. Can I criticize a documentary without it being assumed that I'm disagreeing with it? Not without a disclaimer.
I suppose that's okay. I have more practice giving disclaimers than I have at making arguments.
