Best documentaries you have seen

ratsam

The Armstrong Lie is a good one..... Fascinating stuff...!

Bill Cunningham New York.... brilliant

Man on Wire... superb

Food Inc....

The Imposter....

I watch a lot of doc's but can't remember any more. Dam it....

Exit through the Gift Shop - I'd use documentary VERY loosely on that one. Complete fiction! Banksy laughing all the way to the bank!

Rats

jonnyfingers

I saw The Imposter at a preview screening with a Q&A with the director afterwards, it was very good.

Others I'd recommend are:

Man on Wire
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
The Invisible War
The Cove
Searching for Sugarman
Rock n Roll Nerd (The events leading up to musician/comedian Tim Minchin's big break)
Anvil! The Story of Anvil
How to Survive a Plague
Collapse

rwg

geckovision wrote: »

Finished The Staircase over the weekend. Brilliant!

Guilty as hell!!!

Watched it in full over the weekend, this documentary deserves its own thread

The chinese doctor was right though, where was the splatter?

Daveysil15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR3Y1e1ZVMQ

Velocity_Girl

"The Elephant In The Living Room" fascinating & heartbreaking documentary about people keeping exotic animals as pets.

jonnyfingers

Watched the Staircase documentaries too, very compelling. I agree that its own thread would be good.

Since watching the documentaries on it I've read up on the other evidence of the case, including the autopsy report. It is a strange one as

the prosecution maintain that a poker missing from the fireplace was the murder weapon and was used to beat Kathleen Peterson in the head. However the lacerations on the head are very deep, but there was no skull fractures, which suggests that a heavy blunt instrument was not the murder weapon. If it was it would have to be a slow and controlled beating to avoid fracturing the skull. Also the lacerations are very similar in size, shape and direction so the blows would have to be very precise. That sounds unlikely to me. Also the missing poker was later found in the garage and forensic tests showed that it was not the murder weapon. Indeed, after the trial, a jury member said that they did not believe that the poker was the murder weapon and discounted it.

So for me the prosecution can't explain how the wounds on the head were even inflicted, never mind proving that they were inflicted by Michael Peterson. The only fact I can see is that a fall down the stairs did not kill Kathleen Peterson, the fatal injuries were caused by something else and she most likely lost consciousness going up the stairs and fell down to the bottom of the staircase as a result. It does seem odd that she would have been bleeding for a couple of hours before dying. Now some of the time from when Peterson reported the accident to the ambulance arriving needs to be included in that, but there is still some time where she was lying there bleeding before being discovered. Peterson claims he was outside continuing to drink some wine which may well be true, but it's far from an airtight alibi.

I read up on the owl attack theory put forward by the defense and while it sounds ridiculous initially there is a bit of evidence to back it up. The lacerations are tri-pronged which fit with injuries caused by an attack from a bird's talons. It would explain why there were no skull fractures and Owl attacks were somewhat common in that area. Also some blood was found outside the house and evidence that the victim was bleeding before she got near the stairs suggesting something happened outside. Also the victim had pulled out clumps of her own hair as if struggling to remove something from here hair, and microscopic owl feathers were found in that hair. The main problem I have with the own theory is she surely would have screamed while being attacked and her husband would probably have heard it and come to help her. That would suggest he should have found her immediately which goes against the claim that she bled to death for a couple of hours.

So the owl attack theory may sound a bit improbable but it seems to be a better explanation for the wounds than what the prosecution have suggested, which is very little as far as I can see. They claim she was beaten with an unknown weapon, which was never found, in a controlled and precise manner, however there are no skull fractures and less blood splatter than in a normal beating. So things aren't adding up.

The fact that Elizabeth Ratliff also died in similar circumstances is interesting. However the original autopsy shows hemorrhaging of the brain secondary to a blood coagulation disorder as the cause of death, which was likely caused by a fall down the stairs. The later autopsy by the same medical examiner that did Kathleen Peterson's autopsy found blunt force trauma to be the cause of death and suggested it was due to a homicide. But again there was no skull fractures and it seems to be the word of one medical examiner against another, and it's interesting that the one who did not suspect murder did not find murder, but the one who did suspect murder did find murder.

Either way I look forward to the retrial to see what the prosecution will come up with now that any evidence involving Duane Deaver is likely to be disallowed. But surely they'll need to find a better motive (the suggestion that Peterson's "gay life" which his wife supposedly discovered and was not happy with was discounted by police investigators), and a murder weapon. However my guess is the retrial will never happen. A No Contest of Alford plea will be offered and accepted.

DMcL1971

geckovision wrote: »

Finished The Staircase over the weekend. Brilliant!

I also watched this. I found it fascinating, a very interesting case and also a great documentary on how the legal system works and the amount of effort that goes into a trial. It highlighted the fact that in order to mount any kind of a decent defence you need to have huge financial resources, if you are poor you will just have to give up and head straight to jail.

token56

I feel like Louis Theroux deserves a much bigger shout out here. He has made some wonderful entertaining and informative documentaries over the past number of years.

sillyoulfool

Dear Daughter on RTE 1996.
Christine Buckley, the subject of the documentary , that opened the eyes of most Irish people to the horrors of institutional abuse, died today.

Gongoozler

token56 wrote: »

I feel like Louis Theroux deserves a much bigger shout out here. He has made some wonderful entertaining and informative documentaries over the past number of years.

I dunno, I'll watch more of his documentaries, but watched the one about pedophiles the other night and didn't think it was great. Not very balanced I don't think.

Aglomerado

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Dear Daughter on RTE 1996.
Christine Buckley, the subject of the documentary , that opened the eyes of most Irish people to the horrors of institutional abuse, died today.

That was compelling viewing. Hopefully it will be shown again in her memory.
A brave lady, RIP.

tigger123

The Armstrong Lie is great. It was shot by a filmmaker who had a lot of access to Lance Armstrong over a good few years, and started out as a fan but is slowly turned by what he's seeing as he makes the film, so it's also about the filmmaker and his movie ... a documentary about a documentary. Well worth a look.

Room 237 is great too. It interviews different people as they explain their interpretation of Stanley Kubricks 'The Shining', very strange and very entertaining.

Also, the series on Netflix : Oddesy, The Story of Film, made by an Irish guy. If you're a film fan it's an absolute must.

Am dying to get started on The Staircase, just judging by peoples reaction to it.

tigger123

Gongoozler wrote: »

I dunno, I'll watch more of his documentaries, but watched the one about pedophiles the other night and didn't think it was great. Not very balanced I don't think.

Why don't you think it was balanced?

Gongoozler

tigger123 wrote: »

Why don't you think it was balanced?

I just found it wasn't very good. I mean I would've thought it would've given background of them, and more of them. It focused on the ones that were more likely to be let out. And kept going on about how great they had it. It was a little audience pleasing in that way.

tigger123

Gongoozler wrote: »

I just found it wasn't very good. I mean I would've thought it would've given background of them, and more of them. It focused on the ones that were more likely to be let out. And kept going on about how great they had it. It was a little audience pleasing in that way.

Can't say I saw it that it way. I thought it was focusing on the legal limbo they were in, they had served their sentence and still being detained as no community would have them. I enjoyed it I have to say, there's not many documentary makers that could tackle such a controversial subject.

xalot

Senna,
Bolwing for Columbine and Capturing the Friedmans spring to mind.

Watched Blackfish on Netflix and found it very moving.

minotour

Revelations of the Pyramids

You can find it on Youtibe or topducmentary.com Fascinating stuff about the purpose of the pyramids, focuses more on the why than the who.

Paully D

Thanks for the recommendations on The Staircase. I'm halfway through and really enjoying it.

How or why was the case made into a documentary and how did they get the sort of access that they got, following the accused, the prosecution etc? I've never seen anything like it for such a trial.

I would search for the answer myself but don't want to risk seeing the outcome of the trail or any other subsequent spoiler material online.

Ring4Fea

Art & Copy

Machines of Love and Grace

The Man Who Saved The World

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls [the book was better but still...]

Tasden

Thanks to those who recommended blackfish, really interesting documentary

RollieFingers

xalot wrote: »

Senna,
Bolwing for Columbine and Capturing the Friedmans spring to mind.

Watched Blackfish on Netflix and found it very moving.

Is Blackfish on the Irish netflix? Been wanting to watch this for a while now!

stoneill

POP - the science of Bubbles

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0176phj

Gongoozler

I've started watching the staircase myself. Just the first part so far. Interesting but not sure it needs to be eight parts, and honestly its a bit off putting.

Was interested in watching blackfish but I'd find it very upsetting to watch animal cruelty pieces.

RayCon

Not sure if they've been mentioned but most of the ESPN 30 for 30 documentaries are excellent.

RollieFingers

RayCon wrote: »

Not sure if they've been mentioned but most of the ESPN 30 for 30 documentaries are excellent.

Straight Outta L.A is quality!

DMcL1971

Paully D wrote: »

Thanks for the recommendations on The Staircase. I'm halfway through and really enjoying it.

How or why was the case made into a documentary and how did they get the sort of access that they got, following the accused, the prosecution etc? I've never seen anything like it for such a trial.

I would search for the answer myself but don't want to risk seeing the outcome of the trail or any other subsequent spoiler material online.

Don't worry no spoilers below.

The documentary was made by the french film maker Jean-Xavier de Lestrade who had won an Acadeny Award in 2001 for his documentary 'Murder on a Sunday Morning'. He wanted to make another documentary about the workings of the American criminal justice system. So he was on the lookout for an interesting case to be the subject of his next documentary. He said "I was looking for a story where a man or woman had been accused of killing someone they loved very much, a kind of passionate story." The Peterson case came to his attention as it was a high profile case at the time due to Peterson being a published author, his wife being a wealthy executive and their living in a large mansion.

Peterson's defence lawyer David Rudolf had been approached by many news organisations and TV shows who were interested in doing a documentary on the case but he was strongly opposed to this. However Michael Peterson himself was concerned that he would not receive a fair trial in his community of Durham, as he was unpopular with the local power structure due to his criticism of local politics in his newspaper column. So he decided that it would be a good idea to let an outside documentary team follow them so that the local authorities would be aware that someone independent would be watching what they do and that it might help to keep them in check.

The film maker initially was unsure about whether to commit to following the trial, until he met the Prosecution lawyers and heard how "narrow minded" their view on the case was, at that point he committed to the film. At the outset he was not aware of the many interesting twists and turns the case would end up taking. He followed Peterson and his defence team for two years and accumulated over 600 hours of footage.

When you have finished watching all eight episodes I would recommend watching the follow up documentary made in 2013 and then read the 'Wikipedia' page.

Paully D

DMcL1971 wrote: »

Don't worry no spoilers below.

The documentary was made by the french film maker Jean-Xavier de Lestrade who had won an Acadeny Award in 2001 for his documentary 'Murder on a Sunday Morning'. He wanted to make another documentary about the workings of the American criminal justice system. So he was on the lookout for an interesting case to be the subject of his next documentary. He said "I was looking for a story where a man or woman had been accused of killing someone they loved very much, a kind of passionate story." The Peterson case came to his attention as it was a high profile case at the time due to Peterson being a published author, his wife being a wealthy executive and their living in a large mansion.

Peterson's defence lawyer David Rudolf had been approached by many news organisations and TV shows who were interested in doing a documentary on the case but he was strongly opposed to this. However Michael Peterson himself was concerned that he would not receive a fair trial in his community of Durham, as he was unpopular with the local power structure due to his criticism of local politics in his newspaper column. So he decided that it would be a good idea to let an outside documentary team follow them so that the local authorities would be aware that someone independent would be watching what they do and that it might help to keep them in check.

The film maker initially was unsure about whether to commit to following the trial, until he met the Prosecution lawyers and heard how "narrow minded" their view on the case was, at that point he committed to the film. At the outset he was not aware of the many interesting twists and turns the case would end up taking. He followed Peterson and his defence team for two years and accumulated over 600 hours of footage.

When you have finished watching all eight episodes I would recommend watching the follow up documentary made in 2013 and then read the 'Wikipedia' page.

Brilliant stuff mate, thanks for the detailed response, I appreciate it.

R P McMurphy

DMcL1971 wrote: »

Don't worry no spoilers below.

The documentary was made by the french film maker Jean-Xavier de Lestrade who had won an Acadeny Award in 2001 for his documentary 'Murder on a Sunday Morning'. He wanted to make another documentary about the workings of the American criminal justice system. So he was on the lookout for an interesting case to be the subject of his next documentary. He said "I was looking for a story where a man or woman had been accused of killing someone they loved very much, a kind of passionate story." The Peterson case came to his attention as it was a high profile case at the time due to Peterson being a published author, his wife being a wealthy executive and their living in a large mansion.

Peterson's defence lawyer David Rudolf had been approached by many news organisations and TV shows who were interested in doing a documentary on the case but he was strongly opposed to this. However Michael Peterson himself was concerned that he would not receive a fair trial in his community of Durham, as he was unpopular with the local power structure due to his criticism of local politics in his newspaper column. So he decided that it would be a good idea to let an outside documentary team follow them so that the local authorities would be aware that someone independent would be watching what they do and that it might help to keep them in check.

The film maker initially was unsure about whether to commit to following the trial, until he met the Prosecution lawyers and heard how "narrow minded" their view on the case was, at that point he committed to the film. At the outset he was not aware of the many interesting twists and turns the case would end up taking. He followed Peterson and his defence team for two years and accumulated over 600 hours of footage.

When you have finished watching all eight episodes I would recommend watching the follow up documentary made in 2013 and then read the 'Wikipedia' page.

There is another website called behind the staircase which criticises the documentary. It highlights some of the critical aspects of the case, which were barely addressed in the documentary. Is probably linked to some of mrs petersons family but does have some valid criticisms

enfant terrible

R P McMurphy wrote: »

There is another website called behind the staircase which criticises the documentary. It highlights some of the critical aspects of the case, which were barely addressed in the documentary. Is probably linked to some of mrs petersons family but does have some valid criticisms

"Jean-Xavier's drama contains hours of pathetic family interviews".

Definitely written by family members I'd say.

To those who think he's guilty what do you think was the murder weapon and how did he dispose of it.

If the documentary is reliable the "experts" say her injuries are not consistent with a beating, no injuries you'd expect with a fatal beating just those lacerations.

Think the Owl attack fits the injuries and no murder weapon better.

R P McMurphy

enfant terrible wrote: »

"Jean-Xavier's drama contains hours of pathetic family interviews".

Definitely written by family members I'd say.

To those who think he's guilty what do you think was the murder weapon and how did he dispose of it.

If the documentary is reliable the "experts" say her injuries are not consistent with a beating, no injuries you'd expect with a fatal beating just those lacerations.

Think the Owl attack fits the injuries and no murder weapon better.

The issye I was thinking of was the amount of time it took her to bleed out. Must have been considerable. That and his 911 call raise plenty of issues.

I dont know if he is guilty or not. I think his story does not add up though, maybe would be clearer if he had told it in the witness box but he didnt. Anyone know why the prosecution did not call him?

MonstaMash

Year Zero:The Silent Death of Cambodia by John Pilger & David Munro

enfant terrible

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The issye I was thinking of was the amount of time it took her to bleed out. Must have been considerable. That and his 911 call raise plenty of issues.

I dont know if he is guilty or not. I think his story does not add up though, maybe would be clearer if he had told it in the witness box but he didnt. Anyone know why the prosecution did not call him?

I'm not sure of his guilt either but Owl attacks can be viscous if that's what happened.

Peterson's defence seem to be going with this theory now.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern/2010/12/13/bird-of-the-week-the-killer-owls-of-durham-county/

Would it not be unusual to take the stand in your own defence in a murder trial?

Yamanoto

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Anyone know why the prosecution did not call him?

The prosecution can't compel a defendant to testify, so defence make the call on whether they take the stand or not.

You may recall OJ Simpson also took a pass on the chance to render his own version of the truth to the LA court. It's been a while since I've seen the Staircase, but at one meeting, David Rudolph specifically advises Peterson not to subject himself to cross-examination. That decision may have been partly-informed by their focus group / witness coach sessions & probably to a far greater degree by the defences own view of how Peterson would come across in person to the jury.

Leaving him open to questioning about the events on the night of Kathleen's death, Elizabeth Ratliff's own death in Germany & the can of worms that was his private life obviously didn't constitute enough of a risk / reward to go through with it. Defence believed their forensics debunked much of the State's evidence at the crime scene & this allied to the absence of a motive or murder weapon, created enough of a reasonable doubt for the jury to get their teeth into.

MonkstownHoop

Any chance you could stop talking about it in depth or start its own thread, some people haven't seen it yet

Mike Guide 69

MonkstownHoop wrote: »

Any chance you could stop talking about it in depth or start its own thread, some people haven't seen it yet

I agree, throw in spolier alerts, or open a new thread to chat about the case, for those unfortunate individuals who havent seen this brilliant documentary , gets 10/10 from me

3mm

30 for 30 documentaries by espn are great if you're into sport

tightropetom

The Beckoning Silence

Touching The Void

John Cherry

Pumping Iron
Aileen:Life and Death of a Serial Killer
Bowling for Columbine
The Four Year Plan
The Short Game
Biggie and Tupac
The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters
Louis Theroux:The Most Hated Family in America

Wompa1

Saw a pretty heart breaking one recently. Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father....I wasn't expecting what was coming since it started so slow

WinnyThePoo

Wompa1 wrote: »

Saw a pretty heart breaking one recently. Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father....I wasn't expecting what was coming since it started so slow

Just watched that. So sad. How the hell was that allowed to happen.

Paully D

enfant terrible wrote: »

"
To those who think he's guilty what do you think was the murder weapon and how did he dispose of it.

Post below is in response to the above re: the documentary The Staircase. I've spoilered it as I discuss the verdict and I know that some people haven't watched it yet:

I've just finished watching the documentary and I really don't know if

he is guilty or not, but from what was shown in the documentary I think there is no question that there was reasonable doubt. I expected him to be acquitted based on that to be honest and was surprised at the guilty verdict.

I did a search just to see how things had progressed

since the trial, and I see that Peterson has been out and on house arrest since 2011 awaiting a re-trail as the SBI agent who gave evidence against him was proven to have exaggerated his expertise and given false and deliberately misleading testimonies.

Here's the follow on documentary which shows the events leading up to and including the above if anyone's interested (as suggested by DMcL1971 on the previous page, thanks for the suggestion mate):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qzY_hsXuj8

Tasden

Paully D is spot on about the staircase. Really didn't expect that ending.

Great documentary though.

Fentdog84

SpaceCowb0y

Samsara - non-verbal documentary!

Stunning footage from around the world! Unbelievable scenes!

SEPT 23 1989

Shooting Bigfoot: America's Monster Hunters

This was shown the other night on BBC4

absolutely crazy stuff:D

Calculon1982

Haven’t read the full thread so maybe mentioned already but 'Last Train Home' is the best documentary on life in China that I have seen. I lived there 10 years ago and it was the first time I've seen it properly represented.

Dublinpato

I downloaded what i thought was a documentary called (The Secret Life Of A Sex Offender). Was just a porno haha. I don't have a best but i liked Stephen Fry in America.

Gyalist

Just finished watching Twenty Feet From Stardom, winner of the Oscar for Best Documentary, Features at the 2014 Academy Awards.

It's a must-see for anyone interested in music.

Yamanoto

The 'Summit' series of BBC documentaries by the historian David Reynolds are a great watch, full of fascinating insight and curious asides on the personalities involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFlsYffrTF0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfxSN1LQqB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA4XxUEb_EE

czechlin

What a great thread!

From top of my head - I quite enjoyed 'The Man on Wire' and 'Dreams of a Life'.