Most Politically Correct Directors?

Include documentaries, too.... I'd add Ken Burns. So pro-establishment, while treating the anti-establishment like jokes.

Ken Burns's Vietnam documentary is a joke.

Tom Six. All his films are about people of different races and genders coming together as one.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Rian Johnson is another one.

👏

Why?

I watched it and thought it illuminating as it covered so much of the underlying causes and problems with the 'Vietnam war'.

In what documentaries? and how is he pro-establishment? Maybe a better question is what did you want him to say?

He did one about jazz, and left off all the great white musicians.

He did one on Huey Long, and it consisted of asking random "country bumpkins" about him, and leaving a lot of the great things he did, or spending a few seconds on each point, instead of being objective. You hear some rich elitist say "Mussolini made the trains run on time".. It actually starts with "Every weekend when we met together we asked ourselves how we would assassinate Huey Long.. We didn't mean we would do it".

I didn't watch his Vietnam one because I heard it was junk.. Ironically, the best one I saw was made by Douglas MacArthur's son.

He seems to lack curiosity, and just make whatever and however so that people could praise him (and making money)..


I posted this elsewhere, and the ignorant could only reply with "Why has there been so many conservatives posting" -- again, I'm the LAST thing from conservative. It's always the Democrats who in reality are threatened by "radicals" because they know they sold out. And if they don't, they don't know which side is up; praising the CIA, Wall St., and the Military (just because Trump made a few tweets that didn't kiss their rear ends). This binary garbage kneejerk reflex is getting too much. You can't have a basic conversation without someone telling me something "bad" they allegedly did 40 years ago.

Clever!

I haven't seen Ken Burn's Jazz Musicians doc, but I just googled "great jazz musicians" and all the images that came up were black jazz musicians, except for a couple of white jazz musicians. Perhaps that's because most all of the great jazz musicians were black. Google "great classical musicians" and most will be white, it's not politically correctness in either case, it's just the way it is.

I didn't see the Huey Long doc, but even Hitler made the Autobahn highway and when one does a doc on an infamous politician one shouldn't bother to much with road building projects.

You should watch the Vietnam doc, you would then know that the Vietnam mess starts in the 50s when Ho Chi Minh was trying to free his country from French occupation and begged the U.S. to help his people gain their freedom from being a French colony. We didn't help and after many years of negotiations he turned to the Chinese communist to help his people. Now...that doesn't sound like Ken Burns was being politically correct in his Vietnam doc. In fact right wingers and war hawks hate that documentary which should tell you something about it's content.

I'm a musician (he isn't) and I can tell you that blacks don't actually make up 99% of the greatest jazz musicians. If he would have made it 50 years ago, he'd probably do it in reverse, 99% white.


Roads are important. So were the poor people Governor Long helped out.

Stan Brakhage: I don't know anyone who could possibly feel looked down upon or marginalized by silent presentations of random colours.

Paul Feig: Ghostbusters (2016), that is all.

__________________
“I really have to feel that I could make a difference in the movie, or I shouldn't be doing it.“
Joe Dante

[citation needed]

In a film about those pioneering the form, outside of Bill Evans, what white musicians were neglected? Dave Brubeck? From what I remember he was mentioned, but I also wouldn't care much if he wasn't. Gerry Mulligan? Not really someone I think is essential to the conversation.

Didn't Burns also give short shift to free jazz players (predominantly black as well) like Ayler and Alice Coltrane? I'm a little more bothered by that, personally.

We're not talking about journalism here. Objectivity generally isn't the aim in most documentaries. I can hardly even think of one that doesn't adopt some sort of thesis it attempts to prove, or lean towards, over the course of its running time. There are exceptions to this, maybe Frederick Wiseman, but they aren't the rule. Basically documentaries should be thought more of as visual essays. Not journalism. Not objective.

This of course shouldn't allow deliberately misleading filmmakers like that wretch Michael Moore to escape criticism for misrepresenting interviews, cherry picking data, and editing things in such a way to remove them from context. Not that he hasn't made a few things I haven't found entertaining, but his credentials as a documentarian are extremely dubious. But that's another conversation, because I wouldn't necessarily think of him as being politically correct either.

And when it comes to PC filmmakers, while I'm sure there are some that might be applicable for the designation, I'm not really finding any names jumping out at me.

Steven Spielberg, maybe (with the exception of Temple of Doom)? He seems committed to inclusion and fair treatment for all creeds, genders, sexual persuasions and races both human and alien.

I'd say it's the studios and producers who are politically correct or not. Some directors do what they're told and keep working with these studios, others don't.

That is why Fred Wiseman was a fine documentary director.

The others do what Michael Moore does. They're just better at being sneak about it. Much like how just today more Republicans (40) voted against the bloated $740 billion military budget than Democrats (37), who now suddenly embrace the military, CIA, FBI, and everything they hated a few years ago.

Everyone who makes a documentary (or even opens their mouth) has a message, (some are more worthy than others) but you can still be objective. You named an exception, but I'm sure there are many more, but they probably didn't do well commercially (or were grey-listed) so we'll never hear about them.

I'd add The Maysles Brothers (especially "Salesman") as objective, too. Michael Apted, who is famous for "Seven-Up" that been going on since 1964.... What's upsetting are those who know better (I won't name the one I'm thinking of) but won't do it, because they assume most people are dumb, and can't handle anything complex.

You can present a personal (hence, biased and non objective) point of view without being purposefully deceitful. Michael Moore could have made movies with the same basic thesis and he could have probably made his point fairly well without showcasing weird stats or using selected samples from his reams of unused footage. Sure, we can call into question a documentaries ultimately point, and then create a dialogue back at it since there is almost always two sides to any story. But I'm not on board just saying people are being deceitful because they have a point they want to make and are open that they have this bias. Being open about not being objective is preferable, no? And unless you have examples of these 'better deceivers' are, um, I don't know what to say. There probably are some, but is it a concerning majority. I have no evidence to say this is the case.



The Maysles are not somehow entirely above board. Simply in the scenes they choose to show, as opposed to what they leave on the cutting room floor, would reflect a bias. In Salesman, in particular, I think I've read they straight up staged a couple of the events. Is that problematic? Definitely. Is their film still a legit window into the sad world of door to door salesmen. Of course is it. To expect pure objectivity is a fools errand.



As for Wiseman, he's great, but thankfully documentarians over the years have realized they had lots of other methods to make their voices heard. Documentary filmmakers are artists too, and to hold them all to a single standard of methodology, is to render the medium inert. No thanks.


Also, I don't think objectivity is any more complex than non-objectivity. I'm not sure if there would even be a correlation between the two. The Art of Killing is not a purely objective documentary. But it one of the most complex portraits of violence ever brought to the screen, in part because of what it chooses to show us about those complicit in the murders of thousands, and the disturbingly delusional bubbles they have created around themselves.



And I have absolutely no idea what the military budget has to do with any of this.