(Note: this is NOT about development)
Comment from MSNBC:
"We’re living in a golden age of documentary filmmaking.
Again, if you love or hate Moore, put it aside for a moment and realize that while he may be the loudest and most opportunistic of his ilk, a wave of quality documentaries have hit theaters in his wake."
Ok - I will readily admit that documentaries are always going to be subjective because of who comes up with them. BUT the fact that someone is able to make a movie that, withstanding the valid facts in the movie, is essentially a "diatribe" (from the Ebert Review) against another person or company does not deserve the word "Quality".
The writer makes note of "SuperSize Me" , a documentary where a guy basically ate himself sick when other people did exactly what he did but actually lived a normal life and did not get sick. That's quality? No - that's biased reporting, the same kind of junk that got Dateline in serious trouble when they overflated the tires on the Isuzu trucks they were test-driving way back when.
I don't mind someone coming out with a documentary - but calling something quality when it's simply a popular view is going too far.
Someone please - film me standing on a street and getting hit by cars - can i now say that this is because the car manufacturers make bad products? Of course not.
This isn't against Moore who explicitly makes thought-provoking films - it's about not giving too much "godly" praise to someone who is able to get people to fund his (or anyone else's) personal war against someone, right or wrong.
It is propaganda - pure and simple - just like the kind that is used by politicians (both right and left), dictators (both self-appointed and appointed by the population). Let's call a spade a spade.
MSNBC - The new golden age of documentaries