Charles Ferguson: 2011 Best Documentary, Feature Academy Award Winner and a Biased Documentary...

Charles Ferguson: 2011 Best Documentary, Feature

Academy Award Winner and a Biased Documentary

Filmmaker

Term Paper

By

Yasemin YENER20503483COMD 566

Submitted to

Bülent ÇAPLI

COMD 566Yasemin YENER

2

Bilkent UniversityMay 23, 2011

Introduction

Documentary is a genre that has been argued for a long

time. The main problem with the genre is how people define and

what they expect of a documentary differs. The general

definition regarding what is a documentary is that there is no

one specific description; documentary is “ always relational or

comparative” (Niholas, 2001, p.20). While it was not a very

cared for genre in the past, in the 21st century, documentary

is one of the most supported and produced films. Television

channels produce documentary series and there are many channels

that are devoted to certain types of documentaries. Moreover,

governments support certain kinds of documentary productions

such as cultural productions (Aufderheide, 2007, p. 19).

However, there are controversies on how should a documentary

depict an event, what is the role of the director and the

writer in the production and how much biased documentaries are.

Thus, the principles of documentary filmmaking are often


3

debated. On the other hand, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts

and Sciences elect the best documentary of the year, every

year. Their choices and eligibility rules may shade a light on

these questions.

Academy Awards, that has been organized annually since May

16, 1929 is the most prestigious awards in the motion picture

industry. Since 1941, when the Academy Award for the Best

Documentary was first appeared as a category (History, of the

Academy Awards Oscars.org), it is also one of the most

prestigious award in nonfictional motion picture industry.

Since the award first appeared, approximately 332 documentary

films were nominated for the Best Documentary and since 1964

every year, only five documentary films are nominated for the

award. Charles Ferguson with one nomination in 2007 and one

winning in 2011 for this category comes forward as a

successful, outstanding and prestigious documentary filmmaker.

He shares his history of success with names such as Frank Capra

who was also nominated for Best Documentary, feature in 1944

and won in 1942, and John Ford who won the best documentary,

feature in 1942 and best documentary, short subject in 1943,


4

Alex Gibney who was nominated in 2005 and won the best

documentary, feature in 2007.

Charles Ferguson is producer, writer and a director. He

has written, produced and directed both No End in Sight (2007)

and Inside Job (2010). The first one was nominated for the award,

but the second documentary brought him the little golden man.

He has a Ph.D in political sciences from the M.I.T. and he is

also an author. He also published a book on his academy award

nominated documentary. He also won other important awards such

as the Special Jury Prize in documentary category and nominated

for the Grand Jury Price at the Sundance Film Festival in 2007.

Moreover, he won the best documentary screenplay in 2010 and

was nominated in 2007 for the Writers Guild of America Award.

The main point of this paper, is to investigate the key

points of modern documentary film making and taking in to

consideration the Academy’s rules and eligibility clause,

examining how Charles Ferguson only produced and directed two

documentaries and both of them were nominated for Academy Award

for the Best Documentary, feature, and one of them won the

award. The questions of ‘what is a documentary’, ‘what is

modern documentary’ and ‘is it possible to produce a


5

documentary without being sided’ will be repeatedly asked

throughout the paper. Moreover, the documentary preferences of

Academy Award committee will be discussed as well as the rules

that define which documentaries are eligible for nomination.

After generally discussing what is a documentary and what are

the obligations of Academy Award for the Best Documentary,

feature, the documentary film Inside Job by Charles Ferguson

will be discussed based on the discussions provided in the

first two sections. Best Documentary, feature winner Inside Job

(2010) will be the main focus of the paper.

Principles of Documentary Film

Documentary films are still causing controversy over what

is a documentary and what is not. Documentary film category

first emerged as a quest for ‘natural dramas’ (Deacon, 2005, p.

150).The word was coined by John Grierson when he was reviewing

Moana directed and written by Robert Flaherty in 1926. In the

review, Grierson wrote that Moana, “ ‘being a visual account

of events in the daily life of a Polynesian youth, has

documentary value’, thus translating the French


6

term documentaireand launching a category which is still said to

apply to the film fifty years later” (Rosenbaum, 1975). On the

other hand, Flaherty’s Moana released in 1926 and prior to

that, his Nanook of the North released in 1922 were both much more

fictional than real and Flaherty interfered with the details

such as the members of the families featured and how they

behave during filming, therefore, neither of these two films

were documentaries. With establishing a new category under the

name of documentary films, the discussions about what is a

documentary and what is not began, thereby attempts to identify

the principles of documentary also began.

The first description of what is documentary was of course

defined by the founding father of Documentary genre, John

Grierson (Izod, 1988, p. 426). Grierson’s vision was that a

film “had a duty to educate the public by interpreting the

contemporary scene in an entertaining fashion” (Deacon, 2005,

p.151). Grierson categorized Moana as documentary because he

believed that it was educating people by documenting

contemporary scenes but in an entertaining way. On the other

hand, his statement suggesting that a documentary is “ a

creative treatment of actuality” (Izod, 1988, p. 427) is the


7

starting point of all the controversy over documentary filming.

Is documentary a creative form or does it have to reflect the

truth and reality. When Michael Moore, a highly criticized

documentary filmmaker for his sided narration, accepted his

Academy Award in 2003 for his feature documentary film Bowling

for Columbine (2002), in his acceptance speech he underlined the

problem between the fiction and reality by stating “ we live in

fictitious times… fictitious election results that elect a

fictitious President… a man sending us to war for fictitious

reasons.” (Branston, 2010, p. 359). So, the first principle

that became problematic was the reality- fiction separation in

the motion pictures. In the modern documentary, fiction is not

allowed. There are, however, exceptions.

A documentary filmmaker “have a choice of material from

which to shape a film- interviews, recordings of events, sound

material ( including music and sound FX), documents/ evidence

like charts, maps cartoons, and archive footage” (Branston,

2010, p. 360), which means the artist himself chooses what to

show and what not to show on the documentary. This choices

might be based on the relevance, but it might also have to do

with how the artist want to present his case. As the first


8

documentary definition by Grierson indicates, a documentary

have to be enlightening on the recent events, but how the

evidences are supplied and which evidences are demonstrated in

the documentary are fully up to the filmmaker.

Another exception is the factor of performance. Stella

Bruzzi underlines a very important fact about documentary

films:

[we need to] simply accept that a documentary can never be

the real world, that the camera can never capture life as

it would have unrevealed had it [the camera] not

interfered, and the result of this collision between

apparatus and subject are what constitutes a documentary…

documentaries are performative acts whose truth comes into

being only at the moment of filming. (Bruzzi, 2000, p. 6,7)

While in documentaries many sources such as interviews and

footage videos are used, none of these can be taken for granted

in terms of their truthfulness. As Bruzzi states, that camera

interferes in one way or another and the existence of the

camera limits one’s behavior. Even though a filmmaker is trying

to document what is happening, the subject of the camera

behaves and talks as s/he wishes to be documented. Therefore,

while a documentary is a way of looking for the truth, none of


9

the information revealed in a documentary can be considered as

the whole truth.

In conclusion, there is not a specific description which

every documentary fits in. Instead, there are specific

principles that are considered essential for documentary.

Academy Awards for the Best Documentary

Academy Award for the Best Documentary was first appeared

as a category in 1941, and presented at the 14th Academy Awards

show (History of the Academy Awards,2011, Oscars.org). Of

course, the first Academy Award for the Best Document was

presented by Grierson, since he was the founding father of

documentary form itself (Deacon, 2005, p. 152). In his

presentation speech he said:

At that time some of us thought the Hollywood film… was

unnecessarily out of touch with the social realities… We

sat the growing complexity of modern affairs; and we

thought that if our half-bewildered, half-frivolous

generation did not master events, it was not unlikely that

events would master us. We saw the enormous power of the

film medium and believed it had the very special public

duty to interpret the contemporary scene… we were at first

called a bund of intellectuals and propagandists and told


10

that the documentary idea had nothing to do with

entertainment. (Deacon, 2005, p. 152)

So, by becoming a category in the Academy Award, documentary

genre proved to be valuable genre that should be taken

seriously. Later on, the documentary category was separated in

to two: documentary feature and documentary short subject. This

separation also added more quality and prestige to the types of

documentary.

Since it was first appeared, documentaries such as Desert

Victory (David MacDonald [Dir.], 1943) which was about the

North Africa under the repression of Germany and Italy; The

True Glory (Garson Kanin [Dir.], 1945) which was about Europe

during the World War II; The War Game (Peter Watkins [Dir.],

1965) which was about the affects of nuclear war in Britain.

American Dream (Barbara Kopple [Dir.], 1990) which was about an

American civilian strike against a food company; Into the Arms

of Strangers: Stories of the Kindertransport (Mark Jonathan

Harris [Dir.], 2000) which was about Jewish children who ran

away using an underground railroad during the Nazi Germany was

in power; and this year Inside Job (Charles Ferguson[Dir.],

2010) which was about the economic crises at the United States

in 2007, won the awards. There are specific rules to apply for


11

the documentary category and rules in order to be eligible to

vote for this category.

There are special rules regarding documentaries in the

Rules& Eligibility clause of the Academy Awards application.

The 12th rule, ‘Special Rules for the Documentary Awards’, is

specified in two general articles, one article regarding

documentary feature and one article regarding documentary short

subject. First and most important general article, perhaps, is

the definition of what is a documentary that can apply for the

awards. According to this article an eligible documentary film

is “a theatrically released nonfiction motion picture dealing

creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social,

scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed

in actual occurrence, or may employ partial reenactment, stock

footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as

long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.” (Rules&

Eligibility,2011, Oscars.org). As it was discussed prior, one

of the most important rule is that the documentary is based on

facts, thus obliged to use reliable sources and depend on

reality. On the other hand Grierson’s “ a creative treatment of

actuality” (Izod, 1988, p. 427) statement is taken as a


12

reference in Academy’s definition because in the definition,

the creativity of the work is also pointed out as a

requirement.

“Works that are essentially promotional or instructional are

not eligible, nor are works that are essentially unfiltered

records of performances”

For every declared category, there are active members in

the academy who are recognized and distinctive experts in their

categories. According to the short active Academy members in

the documentary category list: Joe Berlinger – directed more

than, 15 documentaries, documentary shorts and TV

documentaries; Liz Garbus – Directed 15 documentaries and

Television series documentaries, also nominated in 1999 for

Academy Awards for the Best Documentary, Features for ‘The

Farm: Angola, USA’; Alex Gibney – directed 19 documentaries and

TV documentaries, also won an Oscar in 2008 in Best

Documentary, Features category for his ‘Taxi to the Dark Side’;

Mark Lewis – directed 9 documentaries and TV documentaries,

also in 1989 he was nominated for a BAFTA in the Best Short

Film category with his short documentary named ‘Cane Toads: An

Unnatural History’; and, Julia Reichert – directed 7


13

documentaries and TV series documentary, and she was also

nominated for Oscar award three times- are the active voting

members of the documentary category. The members of the

documentary category determine a shortlist of 12 to 15

documentaries. For every category, the entire active members

can vote without any restriction except for five categories.

These are: Animated Short Film, Live Action Short Film,

Documentary Feature, Documentary Short Subject, and Foreign

Language Film. In order to be eligible to vote for these

categories, the member have to confirm that s/he has seen all

the nominated films in the category in a theatrical setting;

the screener viewings are not considered eligible.

Inside Job (2010)

Inside Job is the second documentary of Charles Ferguson and

in 2011 Academy Awards he won the best documentary, feature.

Charles Ferguson interviewed with Adam Lashinsky at the

Commonwealth Club five days after the 2011 Academy Awards,

where his documentary Inside Job brought him, his first Oscar for

the Best Documentary. Ferguson opened up his speech stating

that before he started to work on this project, his close

friends such as Nouriel Roubini – Professor of Economics in the


14

Business School of New York- , Charles Morris – Author – warned

him in 2007 about the upcoming economic crises and this is when

he decided to investigate the upcoming crises. When the

economic collapse occurred, he was well aware that he should

make a documentary regarding this situation. In his

documentary, Ferguson “mixes charts, television clips, still

photos and newspaper headlines fluidly with star interviews

(George Soros, Eliot Spitzer) and some choice words from less

familiar faces, including a brothel madam and a therapist who

each catered to Wall Street in the bubble years” (Dargis,

2010). After discussing the principles of documentary and what

satisfies the academy members, Inside Job can be studied to

understand what aspects made it the best documentary of the

year.

The documentary is composed like an essay with an

introduction and a conclusion. There are five segments and an

introduction segment: Part I: How we got here?; Part II: The

Bubble (2001-2007); Part III: The Crisis; Part IV:

Accountability; Part V: Where We are Now. In the Introduction

segment, the economic crisis in Iceland is depicted. Ferguson

chose this introduction because it serves as a model for what


15

happened in United States in 2007. Iceland was a model of

strong and impenetrable economic structure, yet in 2008

Iceland’s economy collapsed short after its biggest commercial

banks were bankrupt. This introduction explains the general

theme of the whole documentary: economic collapse and

commercial bank’s role in this collapse. After a brief

introduction, the documentary stars in a fictional motion

picture style. The shoots of skyscrapers in New York,

airplanes, private jets, flaw through the screen, in the middle

of which shocking short statements from important interviewees

are placed. During the introduction credits, the music by Peter

Gabriel’s Big Time is used. The chorus of songs is “ Big time,

I’m on my way, I’m making it. Big Time, big time! I’ve got to

make it show yeah. Big time, big time. So much larger than

life…” and perhaps the most significant part is “The place

where I come from is a small town. They think so small. They

use small words. But not me. I'm smarter than that. I worked it

out. I've been stretching my mouth. To let those big words come

right out.”

The first part is about the how the economic complications

started in United States. There is a brief history of U.S.’s


16

economic collapses where the great depression and the rise of

Wall Street are depicted. The history of wrong choices by

government and by bakers are argued. The history of

deregulation and what it is are also explained. United States

President Ronald Regan is pointed out as the first to allow

deregulation in banks and underlined that this caused a huge

meltdown during the 80’s. Later on, government started hiring

wrong people as the head of Treasury, Treasury secretary, etc.

These wrong people appointed by presidents were advisors of big

commercial banks, CEOs or economics professors who made

millions out of the economic collapses. The segment points out

how the tangling economic system in United States was

established.

The second part is about the bubble years between 2001 and

2007 when everyone was making a huge pile of money. The real

estate business was getting very profitable for banks while it

seem profitable for the owners. During that time, the real

estate prices went very high. Banks were selling the very

American Dream and mortgage became a trending investment loan.

The narrator states for instance that “Countrywide Financial,

the largest subprime lender, issued 97 billion dollars’ worth


17

of loans. It made over 11 billion dollars in profits as a

result.” However, this profits made by banks is underlined to

be fake during the segment. It is emphasized that the loans

were bringing profits in the short term, but in the long term,

all the money invested or saved in these banks were getting

wiped out. For instance, in his interview Martin Wolf, the

chief economist commentator of The Financial Times, states that

“It wasn't real profits, it wasn't real income; it was just

money that was being created by the system, and booked as

income two, three years down the road. There's a default; it's

all wiped out.” It is also pointed out that during the bubble

era, instead of the investors, mostly the employees of

insurance companies got rich, because as soon as an investor

signed a contract with the company, company paid its employees

a lot of bonuses. Thus, the main point of this segments is to

show how banks and insurance companies spent the money that did

not belong to them and drained their customers’ money. In the

middle of the segment, President of the United States of

America’s New York Groove song is used. During the song plays,

the shoots of expansive cloths, cars and shops are shown. The

lyrics of the song are “ Here I am, and in the city with a


18

fistful of dollars.[…] In the back of my Cadillac, wicked lady

sitting by my side […], it feels so good tonight, who cares

about tomorrow ”. Perhaps, the song explains the era of

property for the bankers quiet strongly.

The third part is about the crisis. The segment opens up

in 2005, with an CNBC economy program where a news lady

interviews Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Council of

Economic Advisers and the member of the Board of Governors of

the Federal Reserve System at the time. News lady states that

“We have so many economists coming on our air, and saying, oh,

this is a bubble, and it's going to burst, and this is going to

be a real issue for the economy. Some say it could even cause a

recession at some point.” And Bernanke answers stating that

“Well, I, I guess I don't buy your premise. It's a pretty

unlikely possibility. We've never had a decline in house

prices on a nationwide basis”. During this segment, it is

emphasized over and over that there were warnings, fears and

indicators of what is coming, prior to the economic crises.

Narrator summarizes the warnings stating that first in 2004 FBI

alerted the government on the mortgage fraud and the inflated

appraisals and corrupted loan documents. Than in 2005, IMF’s


19

chief economist warned about the danger of the incentives.

Later on Noriel Roubini in 2006 and Allan Sloan in 2007 warned

the officials about the upcoming crises danger. When the crises

exploded in 2008, estate owners could not sell their loan and

the existing loans started going bad. However, when the crises

started taking over the American economy, economists and

government officials were still denying the situation. French

Minister of Economics Christine Lagarde states during the

interview that “I think it was a G7 meeting, of February 2008.

And I remember discussing the issue with, with Hank Paulson.

And I clearly remember telling Hank: we are watching this

tsunami coming. And you just proposing that we ask which

swimming costume we are going to put on” and continues stating

that Paulson’s response, who was United States’ Secretary of

the Treasury at the time, was that “things are pretty much

under control. Yes, we are looking at, this situation

carefully, and yeah, it's under control”. It is stated that

this was the beginning of the end. The dates of the banks

collapsing one by one are chronologically stated and how every

collapsing bank was saved by another big bank is described. The

denial of the government and the bank, insurance companies,


20

etc. involved in the construction of the crises resulted in

many bankrupt banks. The final chapter of the crises was when

President Bush signed a 700 Billion Dollar bailout to save the

banks, but it did not stop the decreasing stock market. This

segment generally emphasizes the denial of the economic crises

and how government’s ignorance cost a huge bill for the whole

country besides those affected by the economic collapse in the

United States such as China.

The final part of the documentary is like a summary of the

past events and how they are affecting the present and

conclusion. “The men who destroyed their own companies, and

plunged the world into crisis, walked away from the wreckage

with their fortunes intact”. Moreover, in the segment, it is

underlined that those who were guilty of the 2007 economic

crises are now employed either by the government, by major

banks or as economy professors in the ivy league universities.

It is also pointed out that economy academicians are

constituting a high danger for the younger generation. Because

“since the 1980s, academic economists have been major advocates

of deregulation, and played powerful roles in shaping U.S.

government policy. Very few of these economic experts warned


21

about the crisis. And even after the crisis, many of them

opposed reform”. Therefore, the architects of the crises are

still educating young economists. This final segment is an eye

opener for the future of the economy, a warning and also a

pointer of the mistakes still being done. Furthermore, this is

the segment where Barack Obama’s incapability is pointed out.

In an archive footage prior to his election, Obama states that

Wall Street should be stabilized and new financial reforms

should be implemented. After his election, Obama elected

Timothy Geithner as the Treasury secretary who was a key player

in the crises; elected Gary Gensler for the head of the

Commodity Futures Trending Commission, who was a former Goldman

Sachs executive and gain a key player; and appointed many other

key players during the crises to sensitive governmental

positions. Moreover, it is stated that Obama administration did

nothing to recover the money that was thrown away to

executives, etc. during the bubble era. In the final part of

the segment, narrator points out that none of the economists

and/or bankers should be trusted, because when given another

change, the history will repeat itself. During the ending

credits, MGMT’s Congratulations song is used. The lyrics of the


22

song are “But I've got someone to make reports. And tell me how

my money's spent. To book my stays and draw my blinds. So I

can't tell what's really there. And all I need's a great big

congratulations.”

One of the most shocking things in the documentary perhaps

is that Matt Damon is narrating the documentary. “the most

effective presence may be the trusted voice of all-American

actor Matt Damon, who narrates the furious takedown of the

financial services and the government. It's a fairly bold move

by the actor.” (Hill, 2010). Generally, a documentary is

narrated by its writer, or director. In some cases, if the

interviewer is a different person, he may also narrate the

documentary. But, using a very popular Hollywood star’s voice

for narration is perhaps not only impeccable and wise but also

unique. It is stated that:

The aggressive (and, yes, utterly biased) tone of the film

makes Damon’s participation all the more notable. As the

narrator, Damon explicitly takes President Obama to task

for hiring so many of the financial executives who pushed

deregulation, and for neglecting to push the feds to

pursue any criminal cases against executives on Wall

Street. Damon, who campaigned for Obama, has also recently


23

said he’s ‘disappointed in the health care plan and in the

troop buildup in Afghanistan’. (Hill, 2010)

It makes is all the more effective and remarkable to use a star

who was supporting Obama, to accuse Obama. This actions shows

how much the president lost his influence and support. Thus,

besides all the facts revealed in the documentary and all the

shocking statements of important academicians, economists and

government officials to show that today Barack Obama lost his

chance to change United States and he is no different than

Bush; Matt Damon narrating the documentary also reveals that

his own supporters are deeply disappointed.

In his words, Ferguson states that “the film is about the

systemic corruption of United States by the financial services

industry and the consequences of that systemic corruption”

during his interview with Ross. The documentary is shocking and

it has an enormous impact over the audience. The viewer thinks

how much s/he missed to see during these years of bubble and

understands how his/her own bank and/or insurance company

ripped off his money while his/ her government ignored it. On

the other hand, it is an anti- Obama administration propaganda.

In the end of his interviews, Ferguson tells to Rose that “I

hope that we all still care that people who are born poor have


24

an opportunity to educate themselves, an opportunity to make a

good living and provide for their own children, that this is

still a country of opportunity and freedom”. He dwells on the

fact that United States is losing its touch on the equality and

freedom understanding. He also underlines both in the

documentary and in his interview that government was

inefficient during the crises and during the reconciliation of

the crises and he does not hesitate to point out fingers.

Moreover, when Andrew Ross Sorkin asks him about him pointing

out finders and how the interviewers reacted when they saw the

documentary, his sole answer is “obviously some of these people

were extremely unhappy. But, you know, too bad.”

Another issue that is important in documentary production

is ethics and using the resources. Ferguson states that he did

not played the interviewers to get out answers from them. He

also explains his interviews process, to make it clear. During

an interview on New York Times’ Deal Book program with Andrew

Ross Sorkin, Ferguson answers to Sorkin’s question on how he

makes a bait and switch stating that “There was no bait and

switch. Essentially, everybody who was interviewed for the film

was given the same information. We told them who we were. Few


25

people asked for my CV and information about me which we

supplied. We said that we were making a documentary we

described the subject of the documentary. Some people had

further detailed questions, most did not. Gelnn Hubbard did

not. We asked them be interviewed, they agreed to be

interviewed.” Ferguson clearly underlines that he did not

deceived any of his interviewees. On the other hand, in the

documentary, Glenn Hubbard, the Chief Economic Advisor during

the Bush Administration and currently the Dean of Columbia

Business School, fiercely says “Look, you have a few more

minutes, and the interview is over,” after he is asked about

his consulting clients. He concludes his interview with

Ferguson saying “This isn't a deposition, sir. I was polite

enough to give you time; foolishly, I now see. But you have

three more minutes. Give it your best shot”. Not only the dean

of a respected university is pictured as an arrogant and

ignorant money grubber, but also by using that footage,

Ferguson strengthened his argument. It is arguable whether it

is moral and ethical to use that footage, but it is obviously

the type of resource Ferguson was looking for. Probably,

another example to this situation is the case of David


26

McCormick’s interview. After Ferguson pressures McCormick about

a statement of Henry Paulson’s, McCormick panics and asks

Ferguson to turn the camera for a second. Ferguson also used

that footage both in the documentary and in the trailer.

As it was argued prior, in the documentary principles

part, a documentary is the mere opinion of its filmmaker. The

intensions of the filmmaker are reflected by how the

documentary is formed. While the intentions of Ferguson were to

argue how the financial crises hit United States in 2007, his

documentary also tended to point fingers to individuals and

blame them. Charles Ferguson gave an interview to Charlie Rose

prior to his Academy Award winning. During the interview,

Ferguson explains that he had to cut out some party of the

interviews because otherwise “ several people said, when they

saw the earlier cut of the film, you cannot do this. Yes, it is

all true but that is exactly the point. The reaction to the

film was going to become about your destruction of these

individual human beings. And that is not what your film is

primarily about.” However, the documentary generally points a

finger at five big investment banks: Goldman Sachs, Morgan

Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns; two


27

financial conglomerates : Citigroup and JP Morgan; three

securities-insurance companies: AIG, MBIA, AMBAC; and three

rating agencies: Moody’s, Standard& Poor’s and Fitch and of

course their senior executives, CEO’s and some of its

employees. Besides, there are politicians such as Barney

Frank, presidents such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama and

economists such as Frederic Mishkin and Glenn Hubbard are

pointed out to cause or played a significant role during the

economic crises. Also, his documentary is stated to be a

documentation of the American economy’s collapse with an

unalloyed anger.

In his interview with Rose, Ferguson underlined that he is

not a political person and what he did in his documentary was

“policy analysis and investigative journalism”. Even though the

tone of all his interviews and his documentary points out his

accusative approach to Obama government; Ferguson stated that

he would like another politician to challenge Obama, if only he

is eligible. The documentary, also, is clearly blaming Obama

government for not doing anything to protect the nation’s

banks, government’s money and citizen’s savings. Ferguson’s

script refuses to accept the fact that any of the given


28

politicians or economists have changed over the years. He is

more like a doomsayer than a cautionary. Ferguson, during his

interview with Adam Lashinsky, again points out his disapproval

of Barrack Obama’s economic policies and his approach to the

meltdown. He underlines that people were hopeful when they

voted for Obama and Obama had the power to change the course of

economic crisis, but ironically, Obama appointed the people who

were responsible from the economic crises in the first place.

Thus, as in his documentary, also in his interview, Ferguson’s

tone is rather accusatory than investigating. He has also the

facts, and he has interviews many people who played key roles

or who know the key points in the crises, but because of his

approach, the documentary turns rather in to a slandering

action. But Ferguson is going for a slandering action: “the

movie ends not long after Robert Gnaizda, formerly with the

Greenlining Institute, a housing advocacy group, characterizes

the Obama administration as “a Wall Street government,” a take

Mr. Ferguson clearly endorses”(Dargis, 2010). Rotha underlines

that a documentary should not be repenting over past or making

any prophecies for the future; instead, a documentary’s aim is

to enlighten its audience on how the past’s legacy affects the


29

present (Rotha, 1995, p.89). Ferguson draws a dramatic picture

of the past, present and the future of Unites States economy

and this shapes the audience’s perception of the events. Rotha

underlines that such a tendency to dramatize the events may

conclude in making a wrong relation between the reality and the

film. Therefore, it should be taken in to consideration that,

the way the information and the interviews are collaged to

gather are a mere opinion of Ferguson. The facts are true, they

are backed up with documents and the American economy collapsed

in 2008. But this does not mean that economy will collapse

again just because Obama elected some of the people related to

the economic meltdown, to his office.

Conclusion

In overall, there have been many disagreements on what is

a documentary and what a documentary should provide for its

audience. In the end, there are few basic principles that came

forward: a documentary should represent the truth and based on

facts; the subject of a documentary should be a product of

everyday life; a documentary should supply a solution or help

the audience gain an awareness about an issue; a documentary

should be creative using music, etc. and pin down the audience


30

to watch the entire documentary. These are the expectations of

Academy from nominated a documentary and these are the

preferred principles by documentary producers. The latest best

documentary award winner Inside Job supplies all the necessities.

It is based on facts and it is backed up by documents.

Moreover, these documents are supplied for the audience on the

official website of the documentary

(http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/site/). The subject is

about everyday life, actually it is all about life. Because

without an economy, one cannot survive in the modern world,

thus money is a very important necessity and part of life. It

is also providing an awareness to the audience about how the

crises happened and how they can and could avoid it. And

finally, as it is stated prior, the music, the charts and other

techniques used in the documentary are not only creative but

also getting attention. Thus, Inside Job was a perfectly suitable

candidate for the academy award.

On the other hand, not to over-generalize such a detailed

documentary or to over-judge, but Barack Obama lost many of his

supporters in 2009-10 period because of his Health Care System

Reform. American people do not like to be tied down by their

http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/site/


31

government and they love their freedom. It is not that

Ferguson’s documentary does not deserve the Academy Award, but

his position against Obama government might have played a role

in this award. Because, one of the most important part of his

documentary which put the documentary forward among the other

nominees was its political stand. Clearly, Obama lost

Ferguson’s support and perhaps many other academy members’

support who voted for the Inside Job. Finally, the documentary

ends with Damon’s words: ‘Some things are worth fighting for’

and the last image on the documentary is the Statue of

Liberty. A little dramatic and a little neo political, is not

it?

References

Aufderheide, Patricia. (2007). Documentary Film: A Very Short

Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.


32

Branston, Gill & Stafford, Roy.(2010) The Media Student’s Book. (5th

ed.). London: Routledge.

Bruzzi, Stella. (2000). New Documentary: A Critical Introduction.

London: Routledge.

Dargis, Manohla (May 16, 2010). At Cannes, the Economy is On –

Screen. New York Times. Retrieved from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/movies/17cannes.html?

ref=arts

Deacon, Desley.(2005). Films as Foreign Offices:

Transnationalism at Paramount in the Twenties and Early

Thirties. Connected Worlds: History in Transnational Perspective. (pp.

139 – 156). Ann Curthoys and Marilyn Lake (Eds.) Australia:

Australian National University.

Ferguson, Charles (Director/ Producer/ Writer), Marrs, Audrey

(Producer). (2010). Inside Job [Documentary]. United States:

Sony Pictures Classics

Ferguson, Charles (Director/ Producer/ Writer), Marrs, Audrey

(Producer). (2007). No End in Sight [Documentary]. United

States: Magnolia Pictures.

Hill, Logan (May 16, 2010). Is Matt Damon’s Narration of a

Cannes Doc a Sign that Hollywood is Abandoning Obama? Plus,

Reviews of Two More Festivals. NY Magazine. Retrieved from:

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/05/is_matt_damons_

narration_of_a.html?imw=Y&f=most-viewed-24h10

Izod, John & Kilborn, Richard. (1998) The Documentary. In John

Hill and Pamela Church Gibson (Eds.) Oxford Guide to Film Studies.

(pp. 426- 433). New York: Oxford Press Inc.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/05/is_matt_damons_%20narration_of_a.html?imw=Y&f=most-viewed-24h10

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/05/is_matt_damons_%20narration_of_a.html?imw=Y&f=most-viewed-24h10

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/movies/17cannes.html?ref=arts

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/movies/17cannes.html?ref=arts


33

Lanshinsky, Adam (Moderator), Ferguson, Charles (Featured).

(2011, March 2).Charles Ferguson: Inside Job. [Meeting of

The Commonwealth Club of California in association with San

Francisco Film Society and Commonwealth Club in San

Francisco]. The Commonwealth Club National Podcast. Podcast

retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej-rN1gnMV8

Nicholas, Bill. (2001). How Do Documentaries Differ from Other

Types of Film?. Introduction to Documentary. (pp. 20- 41). United

States: Indiana University Press.

Rose, Charlie (Interviewer), Ferguson, Charles (Featured).

(November 29, 2010). Charles Ferguson on his Documentary

‘Inside Job’. [Interview]. The Charlie Rose Podcast. Podcast

retrieved from:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11321

Rosenbaum, Jonathan (December, 1975). Moana. Monthly Film Bulletin,

42 (504). Retrieved from: http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?

p=16639

Rotha, Paul. (1995). Belgesel Sinemanın Bazı İlkeleri. Belgesel

Sinema. (pp. 81- 90). Istanbul: Sistem Yayınları.

Sorkin, Andrew Ross (Interviewer), Ferguson, Charles

(Featured). (February 28, 2011). DealBook: Putting Bankers

in Spotlight at Oscars [Interview]. The New York Times Podcast.

Podcast retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=0x1PDYa RQVY&feature=related

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. (2011).

History of the Academy Awards. Retrieved from:

http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/about/history.htm

l

http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/about/history.html

http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/about/history.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x1PDYa%20RQVY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x1PDYa%20RQVY&feature=related

http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=16639

http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=16639

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11321

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej-rN1gnMV8


34

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. (2011).

Members. Retrieved from:

http://www.oscars.org/academy/members/index.html

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. (2011). Rules

& Eligibility. Retrieved from:

http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/rules/84/rule12.h

tml

http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/rules/84/rule12.html

http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/rules/84/rule12.html

http://www.oscars.org/academy/members/index.html

Charles Ferguson: 2011 Best Documentary, Feature Academy Award Winner and a Biased Documentary...

Documents

Transcript of Charles Ferguson: 2011 Best Documentary, Feature Academy Award Winner and a Biased Documentary...