upvote
You're right but the distributors and creators pretend that documentaries are objective fact-finding media. and so does the audience.

Look at Super Size Me . The trailers, news media, promotions, critics, broader news media presented it as an objective case study. And McDonalds canceled a popular sales promotion over it. *and it had an enormous negative influence on McDonald's reputation, that it still hasn't yet recovered from.

90+% of people watch and share documentaries with the perspective that they are objective, truth seeking works.

reply
You know, I was invited to go watch Super Size Me in the theater with a Catholic youth group, and I more or less believed every claim and depiction that was shown on-screen at the time. After all, this guy was consulting with actual, reputable physicians about his condition. And everyone knows that McDonald's food is horrible stuff to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me#Counter-claims

But I was unsurprised, years and years later, to discover that Spurlock's extensive and growing liver damage, and other adverse symptoms, were being helped along quite a bit by his severe alcohol abuse throughout principal photography. It really sort of drove home that there is more than one side to this story they put up on screen, no matter how much they appear to seek and depict the truth.

reply
Occam's Razor of Hollywood. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. He was just a boozer.

Thousands of through-hikers live on McDonalds and Ramen for months and are some of the fittest people. Dozens of other activities like this too.

reply
If A24 / Nathan Fielder promoted this "documentary" like Ali-G / Sasha Baron Kohen's works, they would be honest about it.

Kohen lampoons subjects in candid videos but at least presents his works as a joke, and we're all in on it.

This movie is the exact same thing, but it's promoted as an inside & sincere look at Holmes, when it's really just the Ali G schtick.

reply