DCU School of Communications Assignment Submission Cover Form Incorporating the Universitys Declaration on Plagiarism

This form must be completed by the student (or students) submitting an assignment, and included as a cover page. Assignments submitted without the completed form will not be accepted or marked.
Student Name(s): Paul Gleeson Student Number(s): 56050441 Programme: MTV1 - MA in Film and Television Studies Project Title: Documentary Ethics Module code: CM 528 Lecturer: Laura Canning Word Count: 4,000ish Project Due Date: 27/05/11

I declare that this material, which I now submit for assessment, is entirely my own work and has not been taken from the work of others, save and to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my work. I understand that plagiarism, collusion, and copying is a grave and serious offence in the university and accept the penalties that would be imposed should I engage in plagiarism, collusion, or copying. I have read and understood the Assignment Regulations set out in the module documentation. I have identified and included the source of all facts, ideas, opinions, viewpoints of others in the assignment references. Direct quotations from books, journal articles, internet sources, module text, or any other source whatsoever are acknowledged and the source cited are identified in the assignment references. I have not copied or paraphrased an extract of any length from any source without identifying the source and using quotation marks as appropriate. Any images, audio recordings, video or other materials have likewise been originated and produced by me or are fully acknowledged and identified. This assignment, or any part of it, has not been previously submitted by me or any other person for assessment on this or any other course of study. I have read and understood the referencing guidelines found at http://www.library.dcu.ie/citing&refguide08.pdf and/or recommended in the assignment guidelines.
1

I understand that I may be required to discuss with the module lecturer/s the contents of this submission. I/me/my incorporates we/us/our in the case of group work, which is signed by all of us. Signature(s): Paul Gleeson

These new self reflexive documentaries mix observational passages with interviews, the voice over of the film maker with inter-titles, making patently clear what has been implicit all along: documentaries always were forms of re-presentation, never clear windows onto "reality; the film maker was always a participant-witness and an active fabricator of meaning, producer of cinematic discourse rather than a neutral or all knowing reporter of the way things truly are.' (Nichols. 2005)

Q. Representing The Real: What are the Ethical obligations to which Documentary film-makers must adhere, in the Filming and Presentation of a Documentary?

Introduction In this essay, I aim to discuss this idea of the film-maker as 'an active fabricator of meaning' and his or her ethical obligations to the audience, by use of a comparison between the films of two controversial advocates of the participatory mode of Documentary-making: Nick Broomfield and Michael Moore. Ethics are a set of moral principles or values, or a theory system of moral values (Ethics, 2003). However, in documentary film-making there are no written laws per se, only the common belief that the film maker is obliged to represent the real, while upholding his or her belief of what is right or wrong. There are many academic writings on the topic of Documentary Ethics, and for the purpose of this essay I will be focusing on the issues of Consent, the Right to Privacy, and Misrepresentation through Editing in Broomfields Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer, and Moores Bowling for Columbine.
3

Nick Broomfield V Michael Moore What I believe separates Broomfield and Moore is that whereas the latter seemingly plans his films in advance as political assaults, so that each scene we see is just a well edited stepping stone toward a preconceived conclusion to his storyline, Broomfield prefers to take us on his own personal journey of discovery towards an unpredictable outcome, which could succeed, but will most likely fail. Nichols (1991) himself states that

'Documentary does not involve actors or story lines. It focuses on the real, the natural and the unplanned'.

By using the Participatory mode of documentary-making, both Broomfield and Moore always feature prominently in their films. The reflexive, or reactive approach which occurs as a result of this can come into an ethical grey area as it often takes participants and interviewees completely off guard, as Broomfield literally always keeps the camera rolling and all the microphones switched on prior to the 'official' beginning of the interview, whether pre-arranged or not, and Moore has a reputation for ambushing his subjects through subterfuge and deception. In his book Directing the Documentary (2009); Michael Rabiger describes this technique of Reflexivity as a method to

'Deliberately include [the participants] relationship with those behind the camera-his questions, jokes, and even uncertainty about filming-as part of the movie'.
4

A brief outline of the Ethics to be discussed: Privacy One of the main issues of ethics in Documentary-filmmaking is the issue of Privacy. Calvin Pryluck (2005) states that

'The right to privacy is the right to decide how much, to whom and when disclosures about oneself are made. There are some topics that one discusses with confidants; finally, there are those private things that one is unwilling to consider even in the most private moments'.

Many people might argue that provided the filmmaker has signed consent, that there is nothing unethical about invading one's privacy. However, most experts in the field of ethics and morals would argue that there are boundaries that come with this consent, and that privacy can be breached if the filmmaker intrudes too far into the subject's private space, or attempts to exploit the subject for personal gain.

Consent Another major principle of documentary ethics is the issue of 'Consent'. Brian Winston (2005) states that

'In the scientific literature, there is a wide consensus that consent is not valid unless it was (1) Made under conditions that were free of coercion and deception (2) With full knowledge of the procedure and anticipated effects, (3) By someone competent to consent'.
5

At the present time there is a rising media awareness in society about filmmaking, and documentary-making. But because being in front of a camera is an uncommon experience for most, filmmakers can exploit these participants, as well as misrepresent them. Informed consent is an important issue in regards to protecting the participants. Therefore the filmmaker must be open and truthful about the focus of the film, as well as any outcomes or issues that might occur as a result of participation.

Mispresentation through Editing Filmmakers are obliged to present the audience with accurate and truthful scenes. However, the tools of the editor have often been exploited in order to portray certain opinions or view points. In terms of respecting the audience as well as the participantswith regard to ethics, Brian Winston (2005) argues that

'The camera cannot simply deliver an unmediated reproduction of the truth. Production means mediation'

However, Broomfield's approach to filming and editing is far more subtle than that of Moores. He uses one hand held camera, and one soundman:himself. The belief that 'the camera never lies' is entirely true in the case of Broomfield's representation of his subjects, as they are shot in a raw, continuous manner with very rare cuts. Essentially, what you see, is what you get, as referenced in Stella Bruzzi's New documentary (2006):

'For however manipulated and preconceived the film might be, Broomfield's way of making films ensures that there is never an opportunity to do a second take'

However, being an extremely controversial documentary maker, Michael Moore has regularly come under fire for his unethical Machiavellian methods of filming and editing, making him an interesting comparison to Nick Broomfield.

It is impossible for film makers to truly fulfil their obligations to objectivity and to the truth when you consider that they will always inevitably imprint their own views, values and opinions onto the footage they choose to capture. This, in itself again increases the complexity of documentary ethics. (Nichols. 2001)

Aileen: Life and Death of a serial killer

British filmmaker Nick Broomfield has been responsible for some of the most controversial documentaries seen in recent years. Adopting an expository style presented to us via the participatory mode of documentary film-making, Broomfield is often seen to feature in his own films. Many critics have gone so far as to deem this as vain and egotistical (Pearson, 1994). However, through allowing viewers to see him conducting interviews with participants in an almost disheveled and unprepared fashion, it really feels as though the audience is actually present for the creation of the film, making it a rather unique experience that helps shape the views and opinions of viewer (particularly when we are face to face with an alleged serial killer).
7

As noted previously, Broomfield also employs monotone voice-overs that often reveal his most honest and genuine thoughts in an arguably nonmanipulative manner. However, Broomfield does not focus on any definite 'who did it' conclusion in his investigative documentaries. Instead he tries to highlight the little known aspects of the trials, as well as reveal new elements to the cases he tackles. This forces the audience to view these theories from a different perspective, and encourages the asking of questions.

Broomfield's 2003 sequel documentary 'Aileen: Life and death of a Serial Killer', (here after Life and Death) sees him travel to Florida to conduct three interviews with 'America's first female Serial Killer'Aileen Wuornos, who has spent the last twelve years on Death Row, and is now awaiting execution for the murder of seven men. Broomfield had made a documentary about Wuornos ten years prior to this titled 'Aileen: the selling of a Serial Killer', which focused on the various attempts that were made to exploit Wuorno's story for news coverage, book deals and feature films. The opportunity to film the sequel arose as a result of Broomfield being summoned/subpoenaed to Court; as his 1992 film was being used as evidence in Wuorno's trial. He was there as a defence witness at Wuorno's final legal appeal before Governor Jeb Bush was allowed to pass the death sentence and have her executed. Wuorno's had changed her plea to 'murder in cold blood', however as the documentary unfolds we learn that this might not be the case. The documentary takes a turn towards the ethics of law, as Broomfield takes it upon himself to argue that the death penalty is not justifiable when it is pronounced upon the criminally insane. 'This documentary strongly implies that Wuornos in part changed her plea
8

in order to bring closer her day of execution and categorically states that their informed belief is that Aileen Wuornos was insane and should never have been executed' (Bruzzi, 2006)

It goes without saying that the topic of murder ceases to fascinate and capture audiences globally, whether it's in fiction or non-fiction. Being afforded the rare opportunity to give the world a peek through the keyhole into the mind of a convicted murderer meant that Broomfield had to tread extremely carefully in his attempt to fairly represent her.

The release of his film coincidentally coincided with the release of Patty Jenkinss fictionalized adaptation of the Wuorno's story titled 'Monster', and it seems as though Broomfield was trying his best to dispel the notion that she was in fact a monster. Though he presents us with a snaggletooth witchlike woman who goes from smiling pleasantly, to a cold stare, to cursing lividly within a matter of seconds, Broomfield attempts to elicit sympathy from the audience by exploring her brutal childhood of beatings, prostitution, teen pregnancy, incest, rape and homelessness instead of jumping on the bandwagon and labeling her a murderer who deserved 'to meet old sparky'. At no point does Broomfield try to mislead the audience about anything seen or heard on screen, he is always entirely up front and honest about everything he does. In an early scene it is stated that his prequel Aileen: The selling of a Serial Killer(1993) is being used as evidence in court, of which we see footage from the original film. Questions are raised by the prosecuting lawyer about Broomfield's use of editing in his film with regards to a scene in which Aileen's lawyer, Steve Legal, smokes seven Marijuana cigarettes on the car ride to her court hearing. The lawyer points out via
9

freeze frame in the video, that there is a cut which leaves Legal wearing a different shirt, implying that this 'seven joint ride' can't have been continuous.
1

This is a really fascinating scene in which we see Broomfield on the witnessstand, having to defend his editing techniques. However, in reality, this scene arguably has no vital place in this film. Perhaps Broomfield included it as a response to criticisms that he is egotistical and self-obsessed. It also shows that he is so disinterested in deceiving his audience, that he is wiling to jeopardize his credibility as well as his reputation in order to gain our trust. This truthfulness, and transparency is something that Michael Moore would never show in his documentaries, and has in fact refused to be interviewed on the matter in films such as Manufacturing Dissent and Michael Moore hates America. In terms of the subjects Right to Privacy, that right is somewhat reduced if the film-maker and the subject have a previous relationship, such as the one that Broomfield and Wuornos have. However, in the most controversial scene in Life and Death, we see that Broomfield secretly records a confession from Wuornos. What is controversial about this scene is that she informs him that she did not kill anybody in cold blood, only in self-defence. This information, given to Broomfield six months prior to her execution, could have saved Wuorno's from the death sentence. Broomfield makes no attempt whatsoever to cover up the fact that she was secretly recorded, stating in the voiceover that 'Aileen waited until she thought we weren't filming to talk about the murders.' 2

10

In a later interview, Broomfield told Current.com that "she only said it because she thought we hadn't filmed itand some people thought it was a good thing that it was filmed, because it showed a vulnerable side to her, a side she didn't show. But other people felt we shouldn't have included that. On the other side was my belief that she did think she was killing in self defense, and after the first killing of Richard Mallory [in 1989], she had lost her mind".

In Life and Death, Broomfield clearly has Wuorno's consent, as it is she who requests to film interviews with him, in order to "set the record straight", and so that she "can come clean about [her] cases". One issue which is worth mentioning is the fact that the BSC Code states that in Professional consent defence- people (except minors or the mentally incapacitated) do know what they are doing. (Pryluck. 2005).Broomfields entire agenda in the film is based predominantly on the fact that Aileen Wuornos is insane. Winston (2005) also states that 'an ethically even more murky area involves the question of who is competent to give consent for institutionalized subjects such as prisoners or mental retardates. Should this negate the credibility of Broomfields production? Certainly not, as his agenda is to prove that she had lost her mind, and by allowing the viewer to see Aileen in this raw unedited manner, he invites the audience to make up its own minds.

For Wuorno's final interview before execution, she requests that it be Broomfield who interviews her, and nobody else. This clearly shows how much trust and faith she has in Broomfield, that he will not misrepresent her,
11

nor try and exploit her story. Broomfield's voiceover is quite biased as he enters the interview room. Its clear that she wants me to communicate her ideasbut Aileen, for no good reason is being forced to wear handcuffs and shackles', he also goes on to make the point that States without the death penalty have lower murder rates, 'not that executing insane people seems to be a problem'. This is the only opinionated statement he makes throughout his production, and it is important, as it his imprint on the agenda, which he has presented.

Most critics disliked Broomfield's final interview with Wuornos, however it did serve to prove a point. Bruzzi (2006) states that it was yet another shambolic and, in conventional terms, unsatisfactory Broomfield interview. But, what it also conveys, extremely strongly, is that, on the day prior to her execution, Wuornos was not sound of mind. In her most crazed and bizarre interview yet, Aileen tells Broomfield that she does not want to speak about the murders, but just the police officers who she feels are corrupt and crooked. However, despite her requests, Broomfield still pushes the question of the murders on her. 3 This only serves to incite Wuornos, which further fuels a vitriolic tirade towards Nick particularly when he mentions that he visited her mother. Wuornos begins spewing elaborate conspiracy theories that her cell was bugged, and rigged with a machine, which put sonic pressure on her brain since 1997. She believed that the police had been surveilling her for four months before her arrest, to which Broomfield again pushes her to answer his questions regarding the murder.4 With this, Wuornos launches into another tirade, damming society for sabotaging her life, and for allowing a raped woman to be executed. 'You're
12

gonna get your asses nuked' she shouts. With this she terminates the interview, and as she is leaving, we hear an extremely apologetic Broomfield say 'Aileen, I'm sorry. I'm so sorry'. Perhaps this was done out of guilt? Or perhaps to exonerate himself. In a later interview, Broomfield was asked why he apologized to her, and in as honest an answer as possible in my opinion, said "Because I felt that the interview was such a disappointment for herObviously she was disturbed by the fact that she was going to be executed the next day and, frankly, who wouldn't be? But I felt that maybe she felt that I'd let her down, and it just seemed like such a sad way to be saying goodbye to somebody'. (Bruzzi. 2006) This answer further proves that a cordial relationship had formed between the two over the course of both films, which afforded Broomfield the opportunity to interview her on more private matters. I would also argue that Broomfield pushed her on the topic of the murders, to infuriate her even further so that her insanity would be clear to everybody. 'It's pretty incredible that Aileen had managed to sail through the psychiatric testing the day beforeit makes you wonder what you might have to do to fail'. Broomfield's agenda becomes entirely clear at the end of the film. He hasnt tried to influence or manipulate the viewer to invest in his point of view prior to this, and he has essentially let Aileen portray herself. Here is somebody who's obviously lost their mind, who's totally lost touch with reality, and we're executing a person who's mad, and I don't really know what type of message that gives. I find it very disturbing.

Regardless of the topic, film-makers/ documentary-makers have an

13

exclusive control over the representation of their subject to an audience. With this in mind, they have an ethical responsibility, and should at all times avoid the exploitation or the misrepresentation of the people who feature in their productions. Brian Watson (2005) states that 'although its claim on 'actuality' requires that it behave ethically, its unjournalistic parallel desire to be allowed to be 'creative' permits a measure of artistic 'amorality'. In short the application of even journalistic ethics (themselves complex) to documentary is not straightforward'.

Bowling for Columbine Michael Moore is arguably one of the most famous documentary film makers in the world at the moment, with his controversial Bowling for Columbine (2002) winning an Oscar and earning over $58 million dollars worldwide, and his political production Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) winning the coveted Palm D'or at Cannes, and becoming the highest-grossing documentary of all time at $320 million worldwide. Moore is certainly a force to be reckoned with. However, the main question which has been raised time and time again is, does he fight fair? Accusations of unethical behavior and false representations of his subjects have caused many critics and filmmakers alike to speak out against Moore and his productions. Revered Documentary maker Albert Maysles has gone so far as to say His way of doing things is detestable from my point of viewI think he abuses people. And all these people who have appeared in his films would prefer it if they had not'. (Manufacturing Dissent, & Michael Moore Hates America).

In Bowling for Columbine, Moore explores the issue of gun violence in

14

America, and takes a personal stance against the NRA, portraying them as callous and insensitive towards gun murders in America. In one of the opening scenes, we see how Moore seemingly acquires a free Rifle simply by opening a bank account. The purpose of this scene was to create an immediately dramatic effect for the start of the production, and to highlight his view that all American's are 'Trigger Happy'. However, as Michael Wilson discovered in his opposing documentary Michael Moore hates America (2004), the entire scene was staged for the purpose of the film. Moore had pre-arranged this exchange almost thirty days prior to the actual filming of the event, which Wilson revealed in an interview with the members of staff.5

Moore had been informed, and was well aware of the fact that the vault in question in this scene was located 300 miles away. However, with some clever manipulative wording and neat editing, he convinces the audience that he literally walked into this bank, opened an account, and got a free rifle. He then struts out of the bank, brandishing the rifle proudly above his head. In his article on 'The Consent Defense', Winston states that 'If nothing else, much of the 'fakery' scandal suggests - screams- an overall undiminished public ignorance of documentary film's everyday processes'(2005). However, I disagree with this statement in relation to the scene in question, as the participants were intentionally lied to as a means to an end. Members of staff who were present for the filming all stated in Wilson's interview that they felt misled and deceived.

"I was told that it was going to be something that he was doing on a lot of businesses, and even when he came to do the filming nothing was ever
15

mentioned about what his true intention or story was". (Wilson, 2004)

"'The film maker has a moral obligation to inform his subjects of how they'll be depicted in the film and how this might affect them when the film is shown. When the subjects agree to be filmed, after being informed of how and with what possible consequences, this agreement is called 'informed consent." (Zinnes, 2006 ) Moore's primary ethical obligation in this scene was to truthfully and honestly represent the members of this bank to his audiences. However by essentially deceiving these innocent people by holding back on his true intentions and lying to them, he has broken the rules of informed consent and has operated in an unethical manner.

Moore adopts these same deceitful tactics again in his editing sequence of Charlton Heston as the chairman of the National Rifle Association, by using various sound bites, and scenes from different NRA rallies, to distort his evidence and make it seem like it was just one take. Moore pulls on the emotional threads of viewers by showing scenes from the famous Columbine shootings, spliced with interviews and scenes of screaming students terrified for their lives. This then cuts to a scene in which we see Charlton Heston brandishing a rifle and proclaiming 'I have only five words for you: from my cold dead hands'. This then cuts to a somber voice-over from Moore stating that 'Just ten days after the Columbine killings despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro gun rally for the NRA'. In actual fact, this rally was in no way related to Columbine, but was a
16

meeting that took place annually on that date, for over ten years. This information is clearly something to whichaudiences would not be privy, and because Moore neglects to mention this, we view Heston as a heartless agitator who is ignorant of the deaths of the students. The NRA has since released information that shows that they, under New York law, have to give ten days notice to their members before cancelling a meeting or changing its location (mooreexposed.com). Again, Moore simply uses this information to his advantage and presents us with an extremely false and unfair portrayal of Heston. But Moore does not stop there, he then proceeds to present us with a speech delivered by Heston at the Denver Rally, seemingly in response to the Columbine massacre. This scene is again, heavily edited and put together by splicing clips of various speeches together to make Heston seem even more of a monster. This ventriloquist style of editing is used to great effect by Moore time and time again in all of his documentaries, to denounce those he dislikes on screen, as he manipulates the hearts and minds of his audiences like a skilled puppeteer. Gross et Al (Winston, 2005) state that one of the four categories of privacy invasion which can be deemed as unethical is called 'False Light', which is 'When one has been placed in a false light by images which distort the truth and create false impressions of one's intentions. Character or actions'. Moore has stated in interview that 'Film is edited; film is manipulated to present a point of view. But the facts are 100% true'. Moore's half-baked argument for 'Artistic license' might have staining in some instances, but this does not condone the passing-off of material as in some way, a privileged image of reality, when it is knowingly a work of fiction, particularly when he exploits the tools of the editor to break this principle.
17

He again relies on unethical means to acquire an interview with Charlton Heston at his home, telling him 'I'm here to discuss the whole gun issue, and I'm a member of the NRA'. To reiterate, Pryluck states that 'In the scientific literature, there is a wide consensus that consent is not valid unless it was made (1) under conditions that were free of coercion and deception (2) with full knowledge of the procedure and anticipated effects'. Instead of telling Heston that he was making a documentary about the gun violence in America that indirectly caused the Columbine shootings, he disguises his intentions under the guise of an NRA member to gain access to Heston. In the interview scene itself, Heston seemed weak, frail and taken aback by Moore's verbal attacks. However, at this stage our mind should have already been made up about Heston after seeing what a monster he really is in the previous scenes, and we should support Moore's attacks, presumably. After Heston leaves the room, Moore and his cameraman follow him antagonizingly, asking him to turn around and look at a picture of a young girl who was shot. This scene alone received a standing ovation at the Cannes film festival. However, in close viewing of this scene, we can clearly see that there is no camera facing Moore from that angle, which means he reconstructed this scene, and edited it cleverly to further portray Heston's alleged ignorance towards gun-related deaths. This entire scene is wholly unethical, because if we are to make a judgment on a participant or subject, it should be based on a fair assessment. Although I am focusing mainly on Bowling for Columbine, I cannot help but raise one final comment made by a disabled soldier, Sgt. Peter Damon, who lost his arms in Iraq. Unbeknownst to him, Moore used news footage of him from NBC in his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 to portray the so-called suffering of soldiers
18

for an unjustified war. In Michael Moore hates America, Sgt. Damon is given the opportunity to speak out in response to Moore's false representation, and exploitation of him: "I don't want to be associated with this film, I don't want anything to do with itI don't need him to speak up for me, I've got my own voiceleave me out of it is all I want. I don't want any part of your propaganda, I don't agree with what you're doing, and I'm really pissed off that you decided to use my image to sell your movie". This statement encapsulates the feelings of animosity that Moore receives from participants, and filmmakers alike.

Conclusion Through this brief comparison between Broomfield and Moore, I have highlighted the different ethical approaches to documentary film-making that both adopt. Broomfields subtle and unadulterated style of representation is clearly more honest and more ethical than that of Moores. The only solution to the criminal approach the latter takes is to begin using a collaborative style of editing, wherein he shows copies of his work to the participants and subjects involved, as In a collaborative approach to editing, the participants have an opportunity to offer their interpretations of the material before the form of the film is irrevocably set. (Pryluck 2005). Even though it is futile to try and make a wholly subjective documentary without putting ones own imprint on it, honor and ethical practices should always be in place in order to accurately represent the real to their audiences.

19

The prosecutor asks:

Prosecutor (Hereafter 'P'): Is it true that in doing your work, you routinely edit these things? Nick Broomfield (Hereafter NB): Well, you always edit afterwards P: You use 'cutting' and 'pasting' to put things together? NB: mmmcorrect P: And that's what you do all the time? NB: Well, I don't know about the pasting, but you certainly cut P: 'Pasting' in terms of inserting, connecting, and making things fit together'.
2

Secret recording: NB: Was it self-defense? (Repeated four times) Aileen: Yes, but I can't tell anybody. EVER. I have to go down to the execution; they're too corrupt Nick. NB: Was Mallory [killed in] self defense? Aileen: Yes, and so were some others, but, they would never do me righteous Nick, never. I've gotta go down. I would never be able to handle a life sentence Final Interview: NB: So, are you saying you killed in self-defense or in cold blood? Because you changed your story AW: What the hell are you talking about!? Changed my story on what? NB: about whether it was self defense or not AW: (shouting) I'm not going to get into depth about my cases Nick. I'm on my way to chamber, and there ain't nothing stopping that man. So you can believe it or you can't. Put a big question mark on your film. Final Interview, Broomfield incites Wuornos. NB: let's say they were following you. Nevertheless, you killed seven men AW: I sure did NB: And I'm asking you what made you kill seven men? AW: I'm telling you it's because they kept letting me Nick, don't you get it? NB: Yes, but not everybody is killing seven people, so there must have been something in you that was making you do it? AW: Oh you are lost Nick. You are lost man. They said, 'let her clean the streets then we'll pull her in' NB: But it was all in one year. Seven people in one year. AW: Oh welloh well. NB: But why not say now, why? AW: Because, out of retaliation for taking my life like this, and getting' rich off of it.
4 3

20

Michael Moore Hates America: Interview with Bank Employee

5

"I was contacted by a gentleman in the Tri-State area, who said that he was doing a story on unique businesses across America. I told him that this is the amount of money I would need, that he would need to come in and do a background check, and then we send your gun to a licensed fire arm dealer, and he was very adamant about getting the gun that day. So he told me which gun he wanted, and I had it shipped down from our Peninsula Branch, and so I had one gun, his gun, waiting in the safe for him that day. At this point in the documentary, Moore manipulates her words and her statements to make them fit in his scene. Moore: 500 of these, you have in your vault, 500? Employee: in our vault, yes. Moore: wow

Bibliography and References Achtner, Wolfgang. 2002. Thoughts on Staging and Documenting Reality. Digitaljournalist.org (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0206/achtner.htm). Date Accessed [15/05/11] Bruzzi, Stella. 2006. New Documentary. Taylor & Francis. New York. Pg. 213, 215 Collins, H. 1979. English Dictionary. Harper Collins. 30th Edition. Current.com. 2010. Nick Broomfield picks an Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer moment. www.current.com (http://current.com/entertainment/movies/blog/92699402_nick-broomfield-picks-anaileen-life-and-death-of-a-serial-killer-moment.htm) Date Accessed [16/05/11] Dancyger, Ken. 2002. The techniques of film and video editing. 3rd Edition. Focal Press. Burlington. Massachusetts. Hardy, D. Clarke, J. 2005. Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man. Harper-Collins. New York. Horeck, T. 2007. From Documentary to drama: capturing Aileen Wuornos. Screen 48:2 Pg. 141-159 Jolliffe, G. Zinnes, A. 2006. The Documentary film makers handbook. Continuum International publishing group. New York. Pg 56

21

www.mooreexposed.com/bfc Nichols, B. 2001. Introduction to Documentary. Indiana University Press. Bloomington. Indiana. Pg. 20, 21

Nichols, B. 2005. The voice of Documentary. In: Rosenthal, A. Corner, J. 2005. New Challenges for Documentary. 2nd Edition. Manchester University Press. New York. Pg. 18

Pearson, A. 1994. The fly in the ointmentthe Nick Broomfield story. The Independent. (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/arts--the-fly-in-the-ointment-he-isbest-known-for-making-a-fool-of-eugene-terreblanche-now-hes-about-to-do-the-samefor-lady-thatcher-who-is-this-cult-documentarymaker-who-makes-a-point-of-irritatingpeople-allison-pearson-tells-the-nick-broomfield-story-1436226.html) Date Accessed: [10/05/11)

Pryluck, C. 2005. Ultimately we are all outsiders: The ethics of Documentary filming. In: Rosenthal, A. Corner, J. 2005. New Challenges for Documentary. 2nd Edition. Manchester University Press. New York. Pg. 196, 197

Rabiger, M. 2009. Directing the Documentary. Focal Press. North America Rosenthal, A. Corner, J. 2005. New Challenges for Documentary. 2nd Edition. Manchester University Press. New York.

Ruby, J. The Ethics of Image making; or Theyre going to put me in the movies. Theyre going to make a big star out of me.. In: Rosenthal, A. Corner, J. 2005. New Challenges for Documentary. 2nd Edition. Manchester University Press. New York. Pg. 210,211

22

Winston, B. 2005. Ethics. In: Rosenthal, A. Corner, J. 2005. New Challenges for Documentary. 2nd Edition. Manchester University Press. New York. Pg. 181,182, 187, 197, 203

Documentary Broomfield, N. 2003. Aileen: Life and death of a Serial Killer. Lafayette Films. USA. Available: (http://www.veoh.com/watch/v315372nMwbQyyW?h1=Aileen:+Life+and+Death+of+a+Serial+ Killer) Broomfield, N. 1993. Aileen Wuornos: The selling of a Serial Killer. Lafayette Films. Channel 4 Film Corporation. Melnyk, D. Caine, R. 2007. Manufacturing Dissent: Uncovering Michael Moore. Persistance of Vision Productions. Moore, M. 2002. Bowling for Columbine. Alliance Atlantis Communications. Moore, M. 2004. Fahrenheit 9/11. Fellowship Adventure Group. Dog eat Dog Films. Wilson,M. 2004. Michael Moore hates America. MMHA Productions. Michigan.

23