Michael Moore »

It had to come to this. Now monkeys -- sorry, chimpanzees -- are making their own documentaries.

Well, that's not entirely correct, but that's the angle by which tomorrow's BBC special The Chimpcam Project is being reported by most media. The reality is that the doc is about a behavioral scientist, though it does feature footage shot solely by 11 chimps from the Edinburgh Zoo. And the producer who gave them the smash-proof cameras is now looking to put other kinds of animals in the director's chair as well.

I wish I could say I find the idea fascinating, or even adorable. But honestly, I haven't been this annoyed about the implied ease of documentary filmmaking since Jonathan Caouette made every young wannabe think they can and therefore should make a film about themselves with his very cheap and very self-indulgent Sundance hit Tarnation (which can now be seen, in parts, on YouTube, where it belongs).

Just because you can make a documentary doesn't mean you should make one. And just because someone seems like a good subject for a documentary doesn't mean he or she should be one. For example, the new documentary Off and Running is about a black teenager raised by two white lesbians -- along with their other adopted children -- who seeks out her birth mother. Sounds like a great subject for a film, but this particular doc, directed by Nicole Opper, is actually quite dull and pointless.

The 2000s were a great decade for documentaries, both artistically and commercially. Four films (Fahrenheit 9/11, March of the Penguins and this year's Earth and This Is It) grossed more than $100 million worldwide, with two of them even topping the $200 million mark. Meanwhile, plenty of other films, whether due to their politics or their humorous entertainment value, broke through with mainstream audiences, primarily in the arthouse circuit but also on home video. And speaking of home viewing, thanks to Netflix and free online streaming sites like SnagFilms, more and more people have access to more and more non-fiction films than ever before.

So obviously it's a tough task to narrow down all these docs for a list of the best in the last ten years. In order to spotlight some particularly deserving films (25 of them), I've decided to follow the lead of William Goss' action flick list and break these up into separate categories (15 of them). In a perfect world all these types of documentary would be respected as their own genre, like fiction is with comedy, action, science fiction, etc. And with the amount of non-fiction films produced these days it wouldn't be difficult to list ten favorites for each style and subject sort. Certainly I've had to leave out a lot of favorites, both mine and yours (doing a list like this really makes you realize the films you've not yet seen), so let's keep the discussion going in the comments section.

Best Expository Doc: Documentaries comprised primarily of talking heads and archive footage are so conventional, common and, yes, oftentimes boring that it's a shame most people associate them with non-fiction cinema as a whole. Occasionally, though, the stringing together of facts and expert testimony can be stimulating as well as educational, such as in the case of Eugene Jarecki's Why We Fight (2005), a film that says and asks so much about the questionable direction of the U.S. military in the past 50 years and the complicated origins of our current conflicts in part by referencing, with the intention of contrast, Frank Capra's far more clear-cut expository Why We Fight films from WWII. Everything within the actual film simply and straightforwardly illustrates history and the filmmaker's stance on it, which is all you really need from a doc. Honorable Mention: One of the great things about Charles Ferguson's No End in Sight (2007) is how much information it will feed you about the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq in so little time. We should only be so lucky to have such quick, comprehensive detail communicated to us about every topic.

The Golden Globe nominees are often looked at for hints as to what films might go on to the Academy Awards. But there's one major Oscar category that can't be predicted based on the picks of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association: Best Documentary Feature. There hasn't been a Golden Globe given for best documentary since 1977, and the category had only existed for five years.

Certainly non-fiction films aren't the most popular type, but if there was ever a time for the HFPA to recognize their worth, it was in the past decade. Between Michael Moore and penguins, docs showed they can be moneymakers in the 2000s, and a large number of films broke out enough in the arthouse market to have warranted more attention from organizations celebrating cinema.

Following a solid opening in only four theaters last week, Michael Moore's latest documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, is going nationwide tomorrow. And in true Michael Moore fashion, he wants to share it not only with ticket buyers, but with the people for whom he made the film: the jobless and homeless of America. So for Thursday night only, theaters in ten cities will give free tickets to anyone who shows up, no questions asked. Spread the word.

"To kick off the national release of Capitalism: A Love Story, I've asked the studio to offer a number of screenings in the nation's hardest hit cities -- the ones with the highest unemployment rates and highest foreclosure rates -- where those who've lost their jobs or who are in foreclosure (or have already been evicted) may attend my film free of charge," Moore said in a statement. "They've agreed, and so tonight (Thursday), the night before our opening day, ten cities will grant you free admission if you have fallen on hard times."

Publicity stunt or no, Moore's heart seems to be in the right place. He's not just bringing the free screening to major metropolitan areas, but places like Elkhart, Indiana, a manufacturing city that had an unemployment rate of 18 percent just last spring.

If you live in one of these cities and have fallen victim to economic woes, lost your job, struggle with foreclosures, or know anyone who has, check out the list of participating theaters and be Michael Moore's guest tonight:

Cannes has La Croisette and the world premieres and the yachts and the red carpet mishegoss, but Venice is no slouch when it comes to excellent directors and exciting premieres (and oh yeah, the parties). This year's line-up has plenty to offer cinephiles from around the world. And for you betting types, take note that Abel Ferrara and Werner Herzog will both be there; Herzog will be showing his "re-imagining" of Ferrara's Bad Lieutenant, which so incensed Ferrara that he wished dire bodily harm upon Herzog and star Nicolas Cage.

I'm also particularly excited about Alex Cox showing Repo Chick, a sequel to his fabulous 1984 film Repo Man. Other super-cool stuff includes Steven Soderbergh's The Informant! with Matt Damon and his creepy mustache, Grant Heslov's The Men Who Stare at Goats, starring George Clooney, and [REC 2], the sequel to the Spanish horror film from Jaume Balaguero. Michael Moore with also be there with his new film, Capitalism: A Love Story. And audiences will finally get a look at the long-awaited Cormac McCarthy adaptation, The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen.

Ang Lee, who himself has won two Golden Lions at prior Venice festivals, is heading up the jury.

The full list is after the jump. Let us know what you think about the line-up and what you're eager to see.

What distinguishes a "documentary" from a "narrative feature"? You might as well say, what distinguishes Michael Moore from Brad Pitt? Moore has made three of the top five grossing docs since 1982; the other two featured penguins and global warming. We tend to associate "documentary" with "truth," though the "facts" presented are often disputed, and some highly-regarded "documentaries" have staged some or all of their content. Ronald Bergen in The Guardian argues that "there has always been 'cheating' in documentaries." He concludes: "Isn't it time we drop the word 'documentary' for good?"

Filmmaker Frederick Wiseman is cited in the article as a "leading figure" of Direct Cinema, whose proponents "believed the camera could record the truth unobtrusively. But even Wiseman recognised that there is no pure documentary but all film-making is a process of imposing order on the filmed materials." Yesterday I watched part of Wiseman's The Store (1983) at AFI Dallas, and his skills as a filmmaker are evident: capturing a Neiman-Marcus salesman casually mention a $45,000 price tag, saleswomen being led through "finger calisthenics" and practice smiles, the opening and closing of elevator doors to signal location and time changes. Even if none of the footage was staged, Wiseman decided what to include in the finished film and in what order it would appear. We don't know what he may not have been permitted to shoot.

Some people think a "documentary" sounds like medicine: good for you but not fun to watch. I think the term itself has created a ghetto that keeps people from seeing great movies. What do you think? Is the term "documentary" archaic and out-of-date? Has the line between documentary and fiction become blurred beyond recognition? Is it time to drop "documentary" from our cinematic vocabulary?

400 Screens, 400 Blows is a weekly column that takes an in-depth look at the films playing below the radar, beneath the top ten, and on 400 screens or less.

Every year critics are subjected to who knows how many dozen documentaries; most probably don't bother to see them all, and others will be reluctant to admit that most of them are the same. Oh, the subjects are different. One may be about war in Asia and one will be about war in Europe and another is about politics in the U.S.A., but they're the same in structure and tone and rhythm. We usually get the big three: talking heads, stock footage and photographs, and sometimes some "re-creation footage."

Here are some pointers for future documentarians. 1) Don't do that thing where, if the subject starts crying, you discreetly keep the camera rolling, and then use that footage in the final film. If your cutting is otherwise neat and smooth during the rest of the film, then if you suddenly pause over a weeping shot for the first time, it's annoyingly obvious why you're doing it (see My Architect). 2) If the police or someone else tries to make you turn your camera off, pretend to comply and leave it on. It's very cool and it gets the audience on your side (see Street Fight). 3) No fancy graphics, unless your movie is funny (see Bigger, Stronger, Faster). Animation is still cool -- see Chicago 10 and Waltz with Bashir (208 screens) -- but it could get old, fast, so approach with caution.

With the news that the musical score from The Dark Knight has been disqualified from Academy Awards consideration on the grounds that too many people were credited with composing it, outrage against the Academy's stringent, complicated rules has erupted afresh. In the interest of fueling this indignation and making the world an angrier place, let's take a belligerent march down memory lane and look at seven other controversial disqualifications.

The Jazz Singer disqualified for being a talkie. When the very first Academy Awards were held in May 1929, honoring films released between August 1927 and July 1928, everyone was talking about The Jazz Singer -- the first feature-length movie to use recorded sound in some of its talking and singing scenes. So great was the attention that the Academy disqualified the film from the inaugural Best Picture category, reasoning that its use of sound put it on an uneven playing field against the films still stuck in silence. Instead, the Academy gave Warner Bros. a special award "for producing The Jazz Singer, the pioneer outstanding talking picture, which has revolutionized the industry." It's true, too! I don't know if you've noticed, but pretty much all movies nowadays have talking in them.

Young Americans disqualified from Best Documentary category ... after it already won. Whoops. This is a sad case, and a unique one. The documentary, about the peppy Young Americans show choir, won the Oscar at the 1969 ceremony for being the best feature-length documentary of 1968. But a few weeks later, the Academy discovered that the film had screened at a theater in October 1967, making it eligible for that year's awards and not for 1968. The Academy actually took back the Oscar statues from the filmmakers, Alex Grasshoff and Robert Cohn, and gave the award to the film that had been first runner-up. When Grasshoff died earlier this year, his widow told the Los Angeles Times how heartbroken he'd been. Can you imagine?

If you happen to already be of the opinion that Michael Moore is not the lovable man of the people he appears to be, then this news probably won't be changing your feelings about him anytime soon. One month after Moore offered up free downloads of his latest documentary, Slacker Uprising, Torrent Freak reports that "In a letter dated September 25th, lawyers representing Westside Productions LLC, owner of the Slacker Uprising copyright sprang into action, demanding the removal of a torrent linking to the movie from any and all international sites."

Moore's latest was compiled of footage from his recent college tour -- a tour in which he traveled to colleges in the so-called 'swing states' to speak to students in an attempt to energize young voters. The film is a re-edited version of Moore's 2007 doc, Captain Mike Across America, which screened at TIFF in '07 to lukewarm reviews. Moore initially said the reason behind the free download was both a reward to fans who have supported him over the years, as well as a way to get out his message prior to the upcoming presidential election.

The download was offered only to those living in the US and Canada, but it didn't take long for the film to start popping up on numerous torrent sites outside of North America. Moore's lawyers inexplicably sent their letter to the DNS service (easyDNS) of one of the international sites pirating the flick, which is not required to comply with US law. A co-founder of easyDNS responded to Moore's lawyers with the following: "...Anybody with half a clue knows the net doesn't work like that. In any case, I've sent them our standard 'we're not the web host, we're just the lowly DNS service', but I did point out this seeming contradiction in Michael Moore's message vs. his lawyer's actions."

So while Moore may have every right to control how his film is distributed, maybe someone should have explained that old saying about the internet and pee in a pool.