DEFINING A GENRE

So what, exactly, defines a documentary film these days? While many different types of films come across my desk this awards season, I can't help but wonder what we should really be focusing on for a singular award dubbed 'Best Documentary Feature'.

There are films about music groups, sports celebrities, historical events, and current/polical affairs. But what constitutes a truly good documentary? Story? Subject matter? The 'Gee, whiz!' factor? Or the importance of the film on society as a whole?

I would argue a little bit of all of these, but with a bit more weight given to the latter.

In her book Documentary Storytelling, Sheila Curran Bernard states:

Documentaries bring viewers into new worlds and experiences through the presentation of factual information about real people, places, and events, generally portrayed through the use of actual images and artifacts. But factuality alone does not define documentary films; it's what the filmmaker does with those factual elements, weaving them into an overall narrative that strives to be as compelling as it is truthful and, at its best, results in a film that is greater than the sum of its parts

This is a great starting point, but still leaves me in a quandry as 'puff' subjects like sport and celebrity obviously allow plenty of opportunity for documentary films. Should films on Michael Jordan or Michael Jackson carry the same weight as HARLAN COUNTY U.S.A., CRUDE, and BURMA VJ? It hardly seems fair.

In the United States, sport and celebrity get more play than human rights issues, but does that mean serious documentary film critics should allow them equal play? If documentary filmmakers are to be considered journalists, their films need to reflect the same seriousness as the occupation. I'm not knocking sports writers and celebrity gossip columnists here, they have a place in the overall popular culture. I just don't think they should be held up for comparison to hard-hitting or enlightening films that can change the world.

After all, there IS a distinction between the World Series and a serious world.

America's Duty

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.

Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.


-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt - 1944

And I Thought 'Bait & Switch' Was Illegal



Not so if you are dealing with television commisioning editors. In just the last two years, I have seen network execs extend grandiose promises of series commissions to independent producers only to have them scaled down to nothing.

What's going on here?

Perhaps the networks aren't really 'baiting and switching'. It's more like 'now you see it, now you don't'.

I realize these people are under the gone, but if you've gone through the entire process to get to a green light decision why pull back? People plan their lives around the work they get and income they earn. If you're not sure, then don't give the green light. Once you do, stick with your decision.

Remember, your first answer is usually the correct one.

Advertising Age?

Why do people become irrelevant to TV advertisers when they turn 50? With the 18-49 demo such a key market for advertisers, I can't help but wonder why they aren't continuing to go after the biggest demo they've ever had - the Baby Boomers.

As of this fall's programming season launch, 51% of US citizens old enough to vote are over the age of 45 according to US Census data. That's a lot of eyes to ignore. And a whole lot of money, too.

The math - U.S. population breaks down like this:

Under 18 years = 25%
Ages 18 - 45 years = 37%
Over 45 years = 38%

Figuring a quarter of the population are kids, that leaves over half of all adults in the OVER 45 category. That's HUGE! And they are consistently being ignored by network programmers who keep piling on mindless reality shows and talent contests in a desperate attempt to capture a larger share of 18 - 49 audiences.

Why? Why are intelligent, mature viewers not being given intelligent, mature programs to watch? The more I speak with people over 45, the more I hear they are tuning out of network TV in favor of classic movie channels or the likes of PBS, History International, and BBC America. No wonder the networks keep losing viewers year after year.

With the younger viewers turning to the internet, I can't help but wonder why the niche cable networks aren't raking in massive advertising dollars from high-end companies looking for customers with lots of discretionary income. I'm no marketing executive, but this seems like a no-brainer to me.

Maybe the broadcast networks should take a look at what their high-end earning viewers are watching, then go after advertisers that would pay for that kind of programing. Perhaps the networks would actually better serve the viewing public AND make money?

If these viewers were better served, perhaps we would see an improvement in the quality of programming on that "vast wasteland" known as commercial television.