Documentary Call to Action…Now!

Michael Moore did something a few years ago that many artists never thought would be possible. He brought positive attention to the documentary film. While I personally cannot stand the man, he has done a good thing for film. From his mainstreaming of documentary, people are now more inclined to sit and listen to hard fiction (not re-enacted based on a true story with a studio twist and big name actor to make it more appealing to audiences fiction) and hear the social message passed across in documentary films. Darfur Now is one of those films that has recently gained a lot of attention because of its social message and call to action.
This mainstream documentary uses many elements to draw in an audience. The film follows six people telling their stories about how they are involved with the crisis in Darfur. These six stories are weaved together to tell of what is happening in Darfur, and show what is being done to help. Darfur Now uses celebrities and everyday people to tell these six stories. Don Cheadle, star of the film Hotel Rwanda, is one of the six people that the film follows. In the film, Don uses his celebrity status, to act as a world mediator and activist to help the crisis in Darfur. Don, accompanied by George Clooney, travels to China and Egypt to talk with different heads of government about how their countries are affecting the crisis in Darfur and asking them to help stop what is happening. Later in the film, Don discusses his book, Not On Out Watch, which he co-authored and promotes in the film.
Aside from Don Cheadle, the film follows activist Adam Sterling. Throughout the film, he is documented soliciting the government of California to divest from Sudan. His efforts in the film show how the efforts to save Darfur are still in the grassroots.
The other four stories are not as memorable, although they add to the message of the film. Ted Braun, director of Darfur Now, tries to use various elements to appeal to audiences’ emotional sense. In the story of the people of Darfur, he shows the resilience of the women and how even though they are victimized, they still carry on every day. When the children of Darfur are shown crying because their parents have been killed, it evokes emotion not only from the people surrounding them on screen, but the audience as well. This hit to the emotional sense is the purpose of a documentary of this caliber and shows the documentary has done its job.
Even though there is a strong sense of emotional appeal in some of the stories told, it is still easy to question how much of what played out in the film was staged like docufiction or was more in the fashion of the unpredictable cinema verite? When Don Cheadle and George Clooney travel to Egypt and China to solicit their governments to stand up against the government of Sudan, it is easy to begin questioning if that was reality, or staged for the film so Braun could make a better documentary.
Adam Sterling shows how he used a grassroots movement to make a larger impact on the state of California. In this effort although some things do seem staged, the effort is more sincere and believable that it would happen without cameras present.
In comparison to other documentaries, which aim at raising awareness and activism, Darfur Now takes a mainstream approach unlike the not so well known film Darfur Diaries. This other film tells just the story of the people of Darfur through subtitled interviews and b-roll. This film is a lot more raw and real compared to the Hollywood portrayal given in Darfur Now. Diaries, only an hour long, does something similar to Darfur Now, though in that it tries to evoke emotion out of its audience so that they start to take action against what is happening.
Over the past few years, there have been more and more reports saying that we are living in a visual generation, where people are best stimulated through visual images. With the visuals given in these two films, the filmmakers evoke emotions that are meant to get an audience riled up to the point where they want to take a stand. So are these films then a form of propaganda? Many people often say that about Michael Moore’s films, seeing as that they speak up against government and try to evoke a change and are very one sided. The point of the films about Darfur though is not trying to make the same sort of social change and is not approaching an issue that divides a nation into political parties. Darfur Diaries and Darfur Now try to evoke change through activism and evoking emotions of sorrow, but do not have a radical call to action besides giving time and money to try and make a difference. Michael Moore, in his films, offers radical solutions and examples to make his point as one sided as possible.
As documentaries become more and more mainstream, they are becoming more versatile in the messages they can portray. Although some filmmakers use them as a tool for propaganda, they can be used to just inform people too. It would be easy to classify either Darfur Now or Darfur Diaries as documentaries that only offer propaganda, because they don’t. The two films offer information about a part of the world that the audience may not know exists, and it offers inspiration for those who want to do something to help those who are in need of help, and that is all one could as for from a good documentary.