I was entertained by McGregor’s content. But if you want to watch a real doco about prize fighters, see When We Were Kings about the 1974 bout between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman known as the “Rumble in the Jungle”. It took the filmmaker 22 years to finance and edit, culminating in an Oscar.

Loading

While genuine docos struggle to get made (many never see the light of day) celebrities are paid eyewatering sums for faux documentaries. Netflix reportedly paid Prince Harry and Megan Markle $US100 million ($153 million) for projects including the Harry and Megan docuseries – a stage-managed display of axe-grinding and brand building. Good business? Undoubtedly. Documentary? Hardly.

Fan films and chequebook journalism may not be new, even as cashed up, content-hungry global streamers take things to the next level. So what exactly is wrong with people being entertained?

The problem lies in calling these products “documentaries”. No matter how you define the term, the average punter assumes some level of neutrality on the part of those making biographical docos.

The camera’s power to reveal relies on the subject having no creative control or pecuniary interest. And convincing public figures to participate under these circumstances can be stressful and gruelling work. But why would a cultural icon cooperate with a real documentary maker when they can make squillions while projecting their brand to millions?

Loading

When subjects submit themselves to a skilled documentary maker, audiences can become privy to unvarnished insights into the characters of public figures. In The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer, the celebrity lawmaker submits himself to the Interrotron, a mirrored camera providing audience members with the vantage point of an interrogator looking directly into Spitzer’s eyes. Weiner – a fly on the wall doco about Anthony Weiner’s 2013 disastrous campaign for mayor of New York – resulted in an unflinching portrayal of Democrat royalty during the descent into scandal.

More recently, Framing Britney Spears was made without the consent of the singer, who said she cried for two weeks following its release. I genuinely feel for her, but it’s worth remembering that it’s not a documentary maker’s job to please the subject of their film.

The director of Beckham (Fisher Stevens of Succession fame) claims he retained editorial control. I’m sorry, but if the celebrity you’re depicting executive produced your work, are you a documentary maker or a spin doctor?

Documentary films have become increasingly about wealth – both glorifying it and generating it. Here in Australia, even the outcomes of government screen policy are typically trumpeted in dollar terms. But well-made docos are priceless cultural artefacts that help us understand our history and the people that shape it.

In this age of deep fakes and Russian troll farms, truth is a vanishingly scarce commodity.

Like so much of our media content the documentary genre is being further corroded as commissioning editors chase viewers and dollars in a race to the bottom. The risk isn’t necessarily that punters will believe everything they watch – it’s much worse. We’re hurtling toward a dystopian future in which people don’t believe anything at all.

Gary Newman is a Melbourne-based filmmaker, journalist and communications specialist.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.