The documentary film is a genre which has connotations with "truth" and reality. The term documentary evokes the notion in the spectator that what appears on screen is factually based. The definition of the word in this context is "Presenting facts objectively without editorialising or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film" (Dictionary.com) .
However no documentary is totally objective, decisions on where to place the camera, editing choices and use of devices such as narration, music and close ups all serve to create a narrative of sorts serving the purpose the director intends. As Wolf Koenig said "Every cut is a lie. It's never that way. Those two shots were never next to each other or in time that way."".
Under the pretence of capturing reality/truth documentaries can manipulate the viewer into identifying with ideologies and groups/individuals but what are the implications when the filmmaker puts him/herself in the frame for what some have said is blatant self publicity? .
During the previous decade a new type of documentary maker has emerged, these film makers are celebrities in their own right and in the case of Michael Moore more identifiable than their subjects. Unlike directors such as Ross McElwee or George Kuchar who produce small subjective non-fiction films about their personal lives Michael Moore and Nick Broomfield are media personalities whose films serve as a platform for self publicity. Michael Moore is a multimedia personality: writing books, film making and producing and starring in two television shows. Broomfield has a lower profile but has written books and featured in a television commercial for the car manufacturer Audi where he capitalised on his reputation as a documentary maker by interviewing Audi employees. .
Over the course of this essay I intend to use these two filmmakers use the documentary film serves as a vehicle for the promotion of self.
Both Broomfield and Moore are the centre of their documentaries, they are the subject.