Is The Documentary Dying?

by

Take a look at the prominent nominees for the Emmy Awards’ nonfiction category, and you’ll notice some renowned musicians on the list: Bruce Springsteen, Celine Dion, John Williams, and The Beatles.

Instead of being exciting journeys into contemporary literature’s heart, these Rock and Roll Hall of Fame documentaries seem more like marketing endeavors to some documentary experts, who argue that this trend in nonfiction TV has shifted focus from strong storytelling and journalistic integrity towards brand management.

In this version, I’ve tried to make the sentence simpler by breaking it down into two main ideas: a description of the documentaries (journeys into contemporary literature) and the experts’ perspective on them (more like marketing endeavors). Additionally, I’ve clarified the argument made by the documentary leaders (focus has shifted from strong storytelling and journalistic integrity towards brand management) and made it easier to read.

Over the past two and a half decades, the Emmys documentary special has tackled various social issues, delving into subjects such as Vietnam POWs and prison scandals, child beauty pageants, and racial disparities. However, in more recent times, it has taken a different turn. In 2024, all but one of the five nominees were celebrity biographies, and the year prior saw the same trend continue.

Don’t count on much changing this season: Artist-friendly music docs flood the space.

Thom Powers, an experienced documentary festival programmer (Toronto, DOC NYC among others), notes that the industry’s move towards streaming is leading companies to seek brand names that are dependable and universally recognized. The actual dialogue in the films becomes less significant compared to marketing efforts.

At a critical juncture, when society is grappling with crises such as social injustice, environmental disasters, and cuts to essential services, it amplifies the sadness, according to nonfiction specialists. Regrettably, documentaries are hard to find precisely when they’re most relevant.

Three experienced directors, wishing to remain anonymous to avoid affecting potential collaborations, have voiced their worries and highlighted a significant change in the documentary industry’s influence. They noted that the power has moved away from former leaders like PBS and HBO, and is now held by Netflix, Disney, and Apple. These new players are said to focus more on creating a polished product and boosting brand recognition.

Concerned veteran directors, preferring anonymity for collaboration reasons, have spoken out about a shift in power dynamics within the documentary industry. They’ve pointed out that PBS and HBO, once dominant forces, are no longer at the helm. Now, Netflix, Disney, and Apple seem to be in charge, with a focus on creating polished content and increasing their brand visibility.)

Some claim that part of the decline can be linked to when streamers started airing ads, like Netflix did towards the end of 2022, leading to a reduced tolerance for content that could potentially offend advertisers.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that some of these platforms compensate their contributors, effectively making them unofficial directors. For a long time, artists, actors, and athletes have been required to surrender control to the businesses, labels, and teams they collaborate with. However, it seems that the balance is shifting now.

Companies do indeed have their input, but the growing importance of music rights and the strict supervision by those who govern them can lead to essential humanizing aspects being overlooked. Consequently, numerous nonfiction films now seem more like promotional commercials (documercials) than genuine documentaries, showing only what the subject chooses to reveal.

The crisis emerged in the fall when it was disclosed that Ezra Edelman, renowned for his Emmy-winning 2016 docuseries O.J.: Made in America, had directed a comparable ambitious project for Netflix about the complex life and questionable actions (and more) of Prince. However, concerns were raised among the lawyers and rights management company, Primary Wave, overseeing the musician’s estate regarding the potential impact on album sales. It was reported that some members from the estate threatened to invoke a contract clause to reduce the nine-hour film to six hours. This decision led to the project being indefinitely postponed. Instead, a new, polished authorized movie, not directed by Edelman, will be released instead.

It’s clear that these films, like “Paisley Park,” “Road Diary,” “Music by John Williams,” and “I Am: Celine Dion,” don’t delve deeply into the subjects’ personal lives. Critics have commented that they gloss over substantial material, offering only a superficial exploration instead of an in-depth analysis or comprehensive account. For example, “The Hollywood Reporter” review of “Road Diary” stated that it is not an exhaustive accounting or in-depth excavation. Similarly, “The Guardian” noted that John Williams remains a mystery despite the film “Music by John Williams.” Lastly, “Variety” pointed out that the movie “I Am: Celine Dion” was heavily managed and seemed to avoid anything the subject might not approve of.

The change has occurred quite recently. As recent as six years ago, the Emmy for outstanding documentary special went to HBO’s hard-hitting film, “Leaving Neverland,” which detailed alleged abuse claims against Michael Jackson by two alleged victims. This is a stark contrast to last year’s winner, a celebration of Jim Henson’s genius produced with the family’s approval and released by Disney – an undoubtedly convenient situation for them, avoiding any legal complications similar to those associated with “Neverland.” It appears that there are still instances of journalism in certain documentaries, such as true-crime productions, which recently produced Liz Garbus’ powerful Netflix series, “Gone Girls.

Doc-world veterans point to the size of the streamers as a culprit.

In the current climate of the United States, it’s challenging to present contentious material, according to Alex Gibney, an award-winning documentary filmmaker (his work Going Clear won a nonfiction Emmy in 2015). This is because, as media outlets consolidate, there’s a tendency to avoid offending anyone due to the belief that you can communicate with everyone.

At this year’s Toronto International Film Festival, Gibney’s own journalistic film about Benjamin Netanyahu, titled The Bibi Files, failed to secure a spot on any major network or streaming platform, much like Steve Pink’s anti-Trump documentary The Last Republican. Instead of these acclaimed films, filmmakers claim that the documentaries which manage to secure big deals tend to be well-intentioned but lack rigor – they are essentially admiring portrayals disguised as auteurist works.

It’s not a crime to cater to fans, and many music films can captivate or enlighten them. However, filmmakers express concerns that these overly romantic portrayals might overshadow more profound work. They also lament the irony that artists who gained their genius from delving into complex contradictions often end up with productions devoid of such conflicts.

The individuals involved in the movie business argue that their work promotes creativity in unique ways. While they exercise caution when dealing with delicate or contentious topics, their goal remains to shed insightful light on these subjects.

According to Tom Mackay, president of Sony Music Entertainment’s premium content division, the artists should be prepared to share their entire journey, including both triumphs and tribulations, successes and challenges. He stresses that it’s not about creating a two-hour celebration of victories.

Mackay recognizes that having an established audience is one of the advantages in a challenging media landscape. Distributors can rely on “their global fan base moving over to that platform to view that movie,” he points out.

Although these films are often criticized as symbols of journalism marginalization, those associated with them argue that they are instead reacting to a decline in reporting culture and partially addressing it. As Deborah Klein, a manager at Primary Wave who represents artists like Melissa Etheridge and Cypress Hill (both of whom have been featured in recent documentaries), explains, “Journalism, particularly music journalism, has evolved; there are fewer music platforms and far less extensive articles about musicians compared to the past. These films offer a chance to gain more insight into them.

Despite many projects being guided by business strategies, conglomerates with music collections can avoid significant costs like licensing fees. This advantage allows them to earn money when they sell their movies to streaming platforms. Furthermore, they stand to gain additional income when the popularity of these movies leads to increased music streams or album sales – a success more about synergy than cinematic excellence. It’s hard to ignore the financial reality that companies like Disney+ are producing content such as the story of John Williams’ Star Wars music, or that NBC’s streaming service Peacock is behind Ladies & Gentlemen … 50 Years of SNL Music.

The logic of the universe, as observed in Disney’s case, is akin to them churning out Marvel and Star Wars shows by the handful. They apply this same approach in non-fiction, releasing three movies they hold the rights to: Michael Lindsay-Hogg’s 1970 film Let It Be (originally produced), Peter Jackson’s 2021 four-hour restoration of that movie titled The Beatles: Get Back, and most recently, a Scorsese-produced film called Beatles ’64. Any company with clout employs cross-promotion tactics. However, given the fact that The Beatles spent a significant portion of their career resisting commoditized packaging, this strategy could trigger irony alarms. Thus, we’re stepping into the Lennonverse.

Natalia Nastaskin, the head of content at Primary Wave, expressed that we anticipate some influence on our catalog, but she also sees a chance for groundbreaking narrative-telling with these films. She referred to them as “an additional means of creative self-expression.

However, documentarians claim that this method creates a distinctly unique working atmosphere compared to what they’re accustomed to. As one puts it, “Attending meetings for these projects can sometimes make you feel as if you’re merely addressing a marketing gap rather than providing an artistic perspective.

As a gamer, I’d rephrase it like this:

“For decades, Sheila Nevins, the well-respected ‘godmother’ of modern documentaries at HBO, has been a regular at the Emmy Awards for nonfiction specials (she’s been nominated over 30 times!). Lately though, I can’t help but feel disillusioned with the industry. The documentary genre, which used to shine brightly on our screens, seems to have gone into hiding these days.

Nonetheless, she is convinced that although major streamers might not venture into many risky ventures, there will be an upsurge of documentarians along with curious viewers yearning to grasp the hurdles encountered by the nation, which could revitalize this format.

Even if these companies prefer not to delve too deeply into the film industry, Nevins implies that documentaries are far from extinct. In fact, he hints at potential private investments as a means of film production and distribution. Moreover, he predicts that passionate filmmakers will return with renewed vigor, ready to make a significant impact.

Here’s a way I could rephrase that statement while maintaining its essence and using a more conversational tone as a fan:

“I recently came across an interesting story featured in the May standalone issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. If you’d like to read more captivating stories like this one, consider subscribing to the magazine by clicking here.

Read More

2025-06-01 21:25