Are Documentaries Genuinely Counter-Hegemonic or Business Investments?

In our class discussions this week we touched upon documentary filmmaking. There was a view that documentary films are generally counter-hegemonic and try to raise the awareness of the public on particular issues. Since any kind of filmmaking requires a considerable amount of money in the production process, which must be gained back along with the profit, in this respect, a film can be viewed as investment.

In his Capitalism: a Love Story, Michael Moore debunks the cruelty of America’s current economic system. Instead, he interchangeably offers sometimes Socialism and other times Democracy as a more suitable alternative. It seems as though Moore synonymizes the terms Democracy and Socialism, but the terms are not as interchangeable – any dictionary will proof that while the former is a form of a government system, the latter is the economic one. But for a documentarian who is concerned more with the social impact of his films than he is with their accuracy, Michael Moore seems to professionally execute the task of denouncing the post-Reagan economic system. Or so it appears on the surface. He incorporates the ‘heart-breaking’ human factor and blasts the cataclysmic music of Carl Orff in the process. His approach is not as investigative as it is anecdotal. Moore struggles to form a persistent narrative, thus poorly communicating and obscuring his message. Therefore, it is uncertain what this film is against or for. It is also questionable what the objective of this documentary is. Is it truly counter-hegemonic or is it just another way to make a successful film that will sell?

It seems – as the first half of the film suggests – that Moore, as a growing child, was comfortable with the Capitalist system and everything associated with it. It would be natural to assume that he should be content with Capitalism as an adult as well, for the very Capitalistic system that he rejects in this film is what his career depends upon. After all, the means of production in the Capitalistic system is privately controlled and traded in a market. Large film companies produce, and thus invest, in films with the intent to make profit on the market. It is also worth mentioning that Moore’s hit film, Fahrenheit 9/11 still resides on the top of the list of the most profitable films ever produced by Lionsgate. Moreover, during the November 2004 presidential election between George Bush and John Kerry, Moore had Fahrenheit 9/11 available for pay-per-view during election week, clearly exploiting for his own gain.

So is it just possible that documentaries which are seemingly counter-hegemonic may in 'reality' be designed to make profit, just as mainstream films are? Do they just pick up on mainstream issues and let people hear what they want, if only for a while? Finally, can documentary films bring about fundamental change in a society? How effective can they be?