Frederick Wiseman and Michael Moore - Research Paper Example

Frederick Wiseman and Michael Moore Even at a time when immense information exists on the internet, the last twenty years have seen a rise in the documentary genre. Though documentaries have been difficult to make, as well as fund, there has been an increase in the number of documentaries released. Michael Moore and Frederick Wiseman have been among the leading proponents of this genre, making their documentaries more commercially viable and theatrical-minded. Recent data from the British Film Institute indicates that documentaries released in the UK have increased in number every year in the past two decades. While only four documentaries were released in 2001, ninety documentaries were released in 2012. Since Michael Moore won the Cannes Palme d’or for Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, filmmakers arose to the fact that the documentary was commercially viable. This has been attributed to the dearth of realism that pushed a section of the audience towards authentic storytelling, whereas moving away from fictional plots and spectacular visuals. The ability for documentaries to fill the gaps left by investigative journalism, which is another reason for the interest in documentaries, has been embraced by Michael Moore and Frederick Wiseman in telling the story from their point of view. This paper seeks to compare the way in which the two filmmakers manipulate their films to create a specific point of view, as well as compare their individual impact on social issues. Frederick Wiseman can be described as a sound recordist and editor, all in his role as filmmaker. During recording sessions, Wiseman will focus on the audio recording and, based on the recordings, will determine for the cinematographer what images to capture (Taylor 1). The microphone is used to decide which parts are of interest in the various scenes, pointing out what requires to be filmed. He also works as the editor during this time, exactly considering, which part of the visuals the voice will be placed. It can be said that this style of filmmaking is within the observational documentary tradition, which is also referred to as Direct Cinema. This form of cinema was born when filmmakers began to use wireless technology for sound recording, whereas also moving towards 16mm cameras. This allowed the filmmaker to move away from voice-over narrations and embrace lived experience observation. This recording of the moment and its primacy changed documentary construction (Taylor 1). In his commitment as an observational filmmaker to represent real time, Wiseman presents scenes that show time as lived sans the straightforward nature of voice-overs. Wiseman turned to the Silent Ear’s continuity tradition, building a story that possesses a strong arch while also building scenes with resolution and continuity that push this story arc forward (Films 1). He uses the cutaway in High School to maintain progression of a logical dialogue between Michael and Dr. Allen when Michael refuses to accept the punishment handed to him. Using cutaway to Allen’s ring, Wiseman is able to condense a portion of this conversation. The condensing technique also happens between a couple of edits where Michael is seen standing before he is seen standing, almost inexplicably. While it is possible to see that Michael has changed his position by doing a camera analysis, the same cannot be deciphered from the conversation, as Wiseman is able to assure continuity. Wiseman links two separate moments for dramatic action and time, as well as to convey what he had understood from the different scenes (Films 1). Similarly, Wiseman uses the same technique in Domestic Violence in order to condense conversation and time. In this case, cutaway works to trim stories and shape them while also maintaining the meaning and impact that the filmmaker intended to convey (McGavin 1). He also uses this technique in order to surprise the audience. In Domestic Violence, particularly in the second half, he allows more time for story development with the camera focused in what seems like irrelevant bits and parts of storytelling. However, these parts are not irrelevant Wiseman uses them to demonstrate how victims attempt to run from the experiences, particularly the worst parts. Finally, this extended take ends as Wiseman cuts the image to another victim who is silently seated opposite the speaker who holds the session floor. Through reliance on continuity, Wiseman allows for indexality through seamlessness of sound. This allows Wiseman to create a particular point of view by putting together visuals accompanied, by the right audio, to create a continuous story, even though, the entire film is a combination of independent scenes (McGavin 1). On the other hand, Michael Moore makes his films more akin to a newspaper editorial, rather than as a researched and balanced article (Associated Press 1). His films are all about making an argument by giving the audience his side of the story, and swaying their point of view just as most editorials are meant to do. Therefore, whereas Michael Moore does research films, as well as include factual-information in them, the films do not have all the facts available to Michael Moore on the subject. Much like Wiseman, he cherry picks what is best to present his side of the story while leaving out any counterargument. However, different from Wiseman, visual sequence, rather than audio sequence, is the most important part of the film (Associated Press 1). Michael Moore’s style of filmmaking brings up the difference between realism and formalism. It is possible to characterize Moore’s films in the way, as well as the degree, to which he manipulates the viewer (Mintz 1). On one side, is realism through which the filmmaker takes a neutral angle for the camera, film only one scene, without changing to another angle for the camera. By changing camera angles, Michael Moore is able to change the audience’s point of view. He also manipulates the shot angles, which can lead to psychological manipulation of the audience. When, for example, he takes shots from the top, he allows the audience to have a feeling of superiority and judge the person who is on screen. However, when he wants to make a character more believable, he will take shots from the bottom, which makes the character look more superior while also making the audience feel intimidated (Mintz 1). This use of the camera in this way, as well as manipulation of the visuals to change the perception of the audience is referred to as formalism. By taking varying shots of a character and using specific ones in a particular sequence, Michael Moore is able to manipulate the feelings and thoughts of the audience (Nitro 1). While this moves Michael Moore towards fiction film making, which may be a reason that he won the Cannes Palme d’or, he retains the documentary theme by using facts in the film and partnering the facts with realistic visual and audio. However, it is not possible to remove all elements of filmmakers’ viewpoint from their films and Michael Moore’s viewpoint is evident in most of his documentaries. Therefore, the increased degree of formalism in Michael Moore’s films is simply to enhance the message that her wants to get across. This is no different to newscasts that only present the facts while electing to leave out various facts because there is no time to do so. Michael Moore leaves out facts in order to create a specific point of view that he seeks to present to the audience. His documentaries are purposefully weighted towards formalism as he chooses to influence his audience consciously (Nitro 1). However, this does not mean that he does not make realist films. In fact, his movies sit at the center of realism and formalism. When comparing the two filmmakers, it is clear that Frederick Wiseman is more objective. First, Michael Moore manipulates the visuals in order to give the story his own twist while also leaving out the facts that would provide a counter-argument to the facts that he presents. Wiseman, on the other hand, simply tries to make the film more interesting by creating drama with facts, rather than choosing which facts to use and not to use. Most of his films are open-ended and leave the audience to make their own decision, although he nudges them towards this opinion through his arrangement of facts. Michael Moore, however, makes the decision for the audience, choosing his side of the story, and manipulating the visuals and audio to fit his story. Of the two filmmakers, however, Michael Moore has been the more impactful on social issues. His take on the 9/11 attacks in Fahrenheit 9/11 has been credited with a significant and dramatic change in the stance to the Iraq War. In addition, the facts he provided about prominent Americans and their role in the running of the state paved the way for a long line of conspiracy theory movies and TV series. Works Cited Associated Press. Michael Moore faces heatover methods . 24 June 2006. Web. 15 September 2013 . Films, Benjamin. An evening with Frederick Wiseman. 13 January 2013. Web. 15 September 2013 . McGavin, Patrick. Putting the audience in the middle: Filmmaker Frederick Wiseman explores domestic violence. 11 March 2009. Web. 15 September 2013 . Mintz, Steven. Michael Moore and the Re-Birth of the Documentary. 2005. Web. 15 September 2013 . Nitro, Ronny. Less Truth, Moore Manipulation. 15 December 2007. Web. 15 September 2013 . Taylor, James. Checking Back Into Frederick Wiseman's Hospital. 22 October 2008. Web. 15 September September . Read More