Documentaries that made a difference

You think a movie is the reason the war's unpopular? Not all the dead soldiers? Not the 15 different plans from Dubya, none competently handled? Not the inexplicably long tenure of your boy Rummy, or George Tenet's Presidential Medal of Freedom, or those still-conspicuously-missing WMDs, or the relentless media coverage of the decline in support (which, we can agree, becomes a self-fulfilling and -reinforcing prophecy after a certain point)?

No...you'd rather saddle Michael freakin' Moore with the credit? Really?

 

And really, how trendy are documentaries?

Fahrenheit 9/11 was a monstrous commercial success--unheard of for a documentary. It's like finding out that, yeah, there's actually best-seller potential in Plato's Dialogues.

F9/11 got people who wouldn't normally think of watching a doc shelling out $11.00 to see it. It got ink. It got word of mouth. It made documentaries populist and entertaining.

How trendy?

Well, the 14th annual Hot Docs Festival this year in Toronto, the largest doc festival in North America, had an attendance increase of around 30% from the year before.

I'd say that was trendy.

 

Fahrenheit 9/11 -- God, even the title sucks -- came out in 2004. But it's responsible for a 30 percent increase at a documentary film festival in Toronto three years later?

That's a slow-moving trend, though in fairness, you are Canadian. You guys still wearing slap bracelets too?

 

Yeah, Fahrenheit 9/11 was seen by a lot of people who were big supporters of the war, and it changed their minds. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I read somewhere that it forced a lot of people to re-examine their thoughts on the war, which would never have happened otherwise.

And I'm sure Mr. Moore's loudness and attitude didn't push a single person to vote the other way in 2004. He raised awareness so that The Good Guys almost won. If only Fahrenheit would have come out earlier, more minds could have been changed.

Indisputably, the top doc of all time.

 

I believe what you wanted to write was that it's STILL responsible for a 30 percent increase in ticket sales at a festival three years after its release. Which, to my mind, makes it more significant.

 

"You had the Colts trying to reach the perfection/ Who else thought Farenheit 911 would change the election" ~ Mad Skillz "2004 Rap Up"

 

That's if you assume it is what's responsible. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I'm not sure I see correlation, much less causation.

 

You forgot perhaps the most important "Not"--the fact that there never was a legitimate reason for going in there in first place.

 

You're missing the fucking point, as usual.

A trend is about momentum. A book can start a publishing trend in a specific genre that was unthinkable beforehand. The trend can last for years--or can die in months.

9/11 had a huge effect in reaching a mainstream audience for documentaries.

If you don't understand how that works, I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

Two years earlier, Bowling for Columbine grossed 40 million dollars worldwide.

Just sayin'.

 

There's no disputing global warming. It's scientific fact.
What's in dispute is the cause - natural occurrence or man-made disaster. Pictures at 11.

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

NR's cover story said -- and I'm quoting directly from the cover line -- "It is no longer possible, scientifically or politically, to deny that human activities have very likely increased global temperatures..."

I don't happen to agree, and I thought the story was flawed in several respects -- not least a relentless use of circular logic. But there's no question that that's a departure as an editorial stance for National Review. And I don't think it's off-base to give An Inconvenient Truth some of the credit.