Exploitation as Entertainment.

College Essay

by Luke Leslie Winter 2007

In 2002 cinema audiences everywhere sat back and watched as Carlton Heston NRA spokesperson turned his back on Michael Moore. Heston indifferently sauntered back into his Beverly Hills residence as a dejected Moore pleaded with him to adknowledge a photo of a little girl shot in school by a six year old boy.

In 2003 Timothy Treadwell was killed by the very bears he saw himself protecting, in moment bound for cinematic antiquity his camera recorded the gruesome event, the picture obscured by a lens cap. The difference between Verner Herzong’s 2005 film Grizzlyman and Michael Moore’s 2002 film Bowling for Columbine is exploitation.

Moore’s documentary style lends itself very well to cinema going audiences, its loud, funny, sometimes obnoxious, in your face and always to the point. Bill Nichols would has classified this form as the expository mode of documentary, but Moore often actively takes part of the film, standing in front of the camera making the definition of the Participatory mode also relevant. One always knows exactly what Moore’s message is and it is important to adknowledge that before contrasting him with Herzog. Grizzlyman is a very different documentary, both in inception and execution. Today the common belief remains that documentary exists to persuade, to inform and to educate, a notion that helps form our understanding of the film we are watching.

The trouble with such a preconception is that increasingly we as audiences must understand that filmmakers are merely putting forward a point of view, an idea, a perspective. And like Cinema verite modern documentary is open to varying disciplines, styles and contortions. Moore’s technique of directly taking part in the film, actively engaging with the personalities he chooses to interview tells the audience that we will be privy to his perspective for following hour or so. Moore makes coherent, strong, rallying arguments for the causes he believes in. Common themes run through all his work including anti establishment, anti capitalism and most recently anti war in Iraq. The filmmaker inevitably leaves his imprint on a film he makes, but what audiences today often forget is that every frame documentary is a much a constricted piece as every block buster they’ve sat through.

Where Moore relishes the limelight, Herzog chooses distance. Granted Grizzlyman was very different film from Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11. It came about after Timothy Treadwells tragic death, and for the most part is constructed around Treadwell's own footage of the bears and himself. But Herzog’s discipline is unmissibly more subtle. He respectfully, and slowly reveals the events of of Treadwell's exploits, later probing further into the life of the man, speaking with his friends, his family and slowly constructing a very personal portrait of a man driven by obsession.

Herzogs approach is less sensational then Moore’s, his film is slower, far more austere, moments linger as viewers take in the stunning landscapes of Alaska; a discipline undoubtedly gathered after a career in fiction film. Granted making a film that revolves around someone killed by Grizzly bears, Herzog could be accused of Exploiting Treadwell, and in a respect he is. But as the film probes further, the level of care taken, dignity, appreciation and humanity from the filmmaker comes across. Herzog seems to genuinely relate to his subject, an attribute Moore seldom exhibits. Herzog’s style seems like a blend of the observational and reflexive modes of documentary. Grizzlyman is a film that audiences make their own judgments about, and with that respectful handling of truth audiences don’t feel manipulated, spoken down or exploited.

Louis Theroux the BBC television personality started his career working on Moore’s TV Nation in 1995. In many respects he modeled his style on Moore’s, but a with subtle difference. Moore’s films exude the confidence of a preconceived perspective, a conclusion Moore has already drawn that he now sets out to prove, Theroux utilizes the same in their face stance, often going as far as asking the guests if he can stay with them for the period of the shoot, the difference once again is exploitation.

Granted Theroux primarily focuses on oddball personalities or hated, controversial or unpopular fringe groups, whereas Moore often challenges the audiences perceptions of institutions or systems we would traditionally revere or agree with, therein explaining his more direct approach at actively undermining his subject. But Theroux - merely by his presence, his wit and his personality brings out a reaction. A reaction that comes as a revelation he then lets us analyze, interpret and even empathize with.

The viewers preconceptions and perspective is embodied by Theroux as he sits listening to the opinions of Neo-nazis, Black supremacists, or fundamentalist Christians. He needn’t even be present at times, as letting the subjects just be themselves often lends to the most fascinating pieces of television. In fact its when he breaks this convention, probing further and asking questions he knows will get a reaction that I found myself loosing that empathy or connection with Theroux. Arguably what makes his technique so effective is that grey line between cheek and honesty he often walks as he delicately tip toes through the lives of the various personalities his show focuses on.

In 2002 he visited Chris Eubank, the eccentric retired boxer. For whatever reason Louis spent the first 10 minutes of the show acting like a provocative child, straight out disrespecting Eubank, turning his back to him, walking straight into his house without his usual manners or friendliness, and at one stage even running away from an interview to stand in a garage for no obvious reason then to get a reaction from Eubank. Perhaps the repetitive format of the show lead Louis to become overconfident, arrogant, and dismissive further unintentionally alienating himself from the viewer. If the audience looses that critical link of empathy with the host, a lighthearted expose becomes cringe-worthy to the point of loosing interest. It’s a mistake he hasn’t blatantly repeated in much of his recent work, perhaps he’s learnt from that experience.

Modern documentary is increasingly becoming a blend of various disciplines, or Bill Nichol’s Modes. Modern Documentary Film makers often use dramatization, animation, traditional interviews, archive footage, narration, participatory interaction and sometimes hidden camera footage to construct the narrative or drive of their film. Ethical considerations are increasingly playing catch up to these complicated montages of mixed media.

Documentarians today can be very creative while shaping the edit of their film, taking moments out of context or implying things whilst deliberately withholding information places the modern film maker at a virtual ethical crossroads. Reliable sources of information are taken at face value in modern documentary, audiences are swayed by the opinions of expert sources - selectively chosen by the film makers themselves. Selectively edited by the film makers - juxtaposed against narratives which could potentially entirely misrepresent the films participants.

Bowling for Columbine juxtaposed various speeches Heston had made including the infamous “From my cold dead hands” remark, which ironically was taken from a speech made on an entirely separate occasion, but when juxtaposed with Moore’s narrative about Columbines High-school atrocities, the audience took Heston’s remark to have been made in-spite of the shootings. Michael Wilson's film “Michael Moore hates America” further questions Moore’s technique, personal politics and psychology in a rather smart narrative constructed to echo Moore’s “Roger and Me”.

Moore’s controversial documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 leveled a multitude of stirring arguments at George Bush, and is text book case for a film which bent the unwritten rules of moral documentary making, favoring the notion that the end justifies the means. This purposeful creative re-telling of fact in many respects undermined Moore as supporters of Bush found a foot-hole to dismantle the films and indeed Moore’s credibility. Bush went on to become the re-elected in-spite of the film. In a sense Bush did the unthinkable, he was lawfully re-elected in the face of a film challenging the legitimacy of his office, a film that grossed over 200 million dollars at the box office, making it the highest grossing documentary in history.

In essence all film making is exploitation is some shape or form. Directors exploit their actors abilities, whoring their good-looks on billboards trailers and press junkets to promote their films. Film in itself is and exploitative medium, exploiting whole audiences relying on convention, or even exploiting convention by playing against type and sending the plot shockingly in a spiraling different direction. But more so then exploiting our perceptions of a given event or agent, film exploits audiences desire to be lead, to be used and ultimately to be entertained.

Documentary Film makers today certainly run the risk of misrepresenting sources and participants in their films. But it takes moral conviction to selectively construct & use what respectfully represents the views and position of a documentaries contributors. Verner Herzog’s film Grizzly man embodies a respectful representation of a films participants, it raises itself from entertainment to art by calculatingly choosing not to play the sound of Trentwell and Amie being brutally attacked and eaten by a marauding Grizzly bear, a choice some could argue would have lessened the impact of the film, but a respectful decision none the less. In essence Herzog choose not to exploit Trentwell to heighten the film - he could have - but he didn’t.