AJ's Doc Talk

First and foremost before I proceed to compare the documentary styles of Ken Burns and Michael Moore let me say that they both take on different concepts to present in their films. Moore typically tackles difficult and controversial situation and problems like school shootings and capitalism. Burns on the other hand usually takes on historical concepts like baseball, the civil war, and radio. But, Burns has made the leap into controversial subjects like the Central Park Five, and the Dust Bowl. The main aspect of both styles I want to address is the overall role of a documentarian in both styles and by which their messages are conveyed. The biggest, and most prevalent, different in both style is very easy to see: Michael Moore is the main character of every single on of his films. Ken Burns has no character role, dialogue, or physical presence in any of his films. Quite simple, everyone who has seen a Michael Moore documentary knows what he looks like. Everyone who has seen a Ken Burns documentary, does not know what he looks like.

Michael Moore inserts himself into his films as a character. He does a good job of keeping the focus on the issue rather then on himself though. Moore uses himself to facilitate  between the issue and the viewer. He himself serves almost as an investigator contracted by the public viewing audience. Nichols discusses other films by Moore like Roger and Me. Nichols talks about how Moore presents issues in a “fresh and distinctive” way. In Roger and Me Michael Moore takes on the hero role, says Nichols. Moore uses the film to show his quest to ask the head of General Motors, Roger Smith, what he planned to do to help unemployment since shutting down a plant in Flint, Michigan. This is Moore’s hometown. Overall Moore’s style accepts that although the public may be familiar with things like corporate downsizing and unemployment there is more information to be understood and Moore acts as the catalyst that presents it. Moore is a character in his films to play the role that his audience is in. On any given day a discussion breaks out about things like capitalism or unemployment. To which someone might stop to think, “somebody should really do something about this” or “somebody should let people know about this.” This is where Michael Moore excels. He is the man who informs and argues on behalf of the public. Nichols calls him a “social conscious nebbish who will do whatever it takes to get to the bottom of pressing social concerns.” Moore takes the first person perspective and makes it into a narrative that only he can tell.

Burns on the others hand has taken a drastically different approach. Burns has absolutely no interaction in the film. He is not a character nor does he supply any physical presence in the film. Burns takes on the role of documentarian by allowing the film speak for him. His films are known for being lengthy, multi-episode installments such as the film on Baseball or the Civil War. Burns has a signature effect in the film world. He has been credited with it in numerous ways and even asking any filmmaker what the Ken Burns effect is will yield the same result. The effect is basically put, movement within still photographs. Because many of Burns’ films are of history there is no film or video present. However, photographs most of the time are. Because of this Burns uses the photos as a visual element giving them life by slowly moving around different aspects of them to show movement and a different perspective than simply just standing still on a photo. Narration over the effect tops things off by giving an account of a particular event illustrated by a photo. The effect is below.

The effect is so popular in film making that Apple’s user friendly video editing software iMovie has the pre-made effect labeled as the “Ken Burns Effect.” Although Burns typically takes on historical concepts as in Empire of the Air: The Men Who Made Radio, he has delved into difficult and controversial topics like the recent Central Park Five. In this film Burns took a reaccount of the famous Central Park Jogger case from 1989. The case yielded the arrest and coerced confession of five young minority boys who would then be imprisoned for decades. All for a crime they did not commit. The film takes to interviews of all five boys, now men, involved. On top of this Burns uses his trademark effect and archive footage taken of the boys coerced confessions. Through all of this Burns never takes a role in the film himself. He is not the hero, he is not our cinematic appointed investigator and he is not the star of his film. In turn Burns’ films, in my opinion, can be thought of as more objective. They show facts and they give opinions from the real people involved. Moore’s documentaries are good at investigating. They give the subjective side of argumentation and allow the audience to react not only to the social concern but to Michael Moore’s take on the concern. Personally I like Burns’ style better. His films come off as a great representation of reality through the lens of a particular concept. Each film takes the composition of a documentary film to a different perspective by using real material and real aspects. Not much dramatization is present, and an audience can really understand what is happening in a sequence. There is a depiction of reality but because of how Burns compiles different primary accounts of events reality does not seem that far off from the film. I would suggest to watch both Burns’ and Moore’s films to anyone. They are both very decorated documentarians with films so different there is bound to be something that peaks the interest of everyone. To answer the question of where does the role of the documentarian start and stop is difficult. I cannot say there is a distinct answer. What I can derive from film making is that documentarians play a role in all of their films. Some are just more involved than others.