Nor is pretty much anything Michael Moore puts on film. It’s flat out appalling how much credence the media lends to Moore’s films by surrepetitiously calling them documentaries. What’s a documentary?
doc·u·men·ta·ry - 2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
That’s right, objectively without editorializing. Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 is detailed on the Cannes Film Festival Site as “a documentary that denounces the errors of the Bush government’s policies”. How can an a film “objectively without editorializing” denounce the errors of anyone? Denouncing implies judgement, which obliterates objectiveness. To the average person, calling a film a documentary suggests that it has taken an objective, fact-based approach to the subject matter. By calling the film a documentary rather than a film editorial, they are advancing the agenda that this film is fact rather than what it is – a slanted look at current events – an opinion editorial on film.
Moore intentionally refuses to cover different angles on his subjects, because that wouldn’t satisfy his political agenda. Clearly he has an agenda, his books and public comments are sufficient to establish that. A better documentarian could separate opinion from fact, and give an issue that intrigued them a fair treatment – the director of “Super Size Me” has made it a point that his goal is not to blame the fast food industry, and that the subject also involves personal choice. Moore invokes no such balance in his filmmaking, choosing to give topics treatments that serve his subjective purposes. He deserves a category all his own for feature-length editorials.