Documentary film has never had it better, so to speak. If there is any doubt that the last five years have witnessed a transformation in the way that we watch this genre of cinema, take a look at the list of top grossing documentaries of all time: 8 out of 10 were released in 2002 or later.

This relatively recent popularity owes itself in large part to Michael Mooreí¢â‚¬â„¢s í¢â‚¬Å“Bowling for Columbineí¢â‚¬ , a film that as well as convincing production companies that the relatively lower budget documentary film can make a healthy profit in the box office, also convinced cinema goers that documentary could be as entertaining and eye popping as the more traditional action thriller. Its success subsequently paved the way for the commissioning of a myriad of triumphant feature length docs over the next five years ranging from the breeding cycles of penguins (March of the Penguins) to the dance programs in New York City (Mad Hot Ballroom).

But í¢â‚¬Å“Bowling for Columbineí¢â‚¬  also marked another important change. With the exception of 1994í¢â‚¬â„¢s í¢â‚¬Å“The War Roomí¢â‚¬ , feature length documentaries with political undertones are a relatively recent addition to mainstream cinemas and box office charts. In the past four years alone films such as í¢â‚¬Å“Outfoxedí¢â‚¬ , í¢â‚¬Å“The Corporationí¢â‚¬ , í¢â‚¬Å“Super Size Meí¢â‚¬  and í¢â‚¬Å“An Inconvenient Truth,í¢â‚¬  along with Mooreí¢â‚¬â„¢s other mega hit, í¢â‚¬Å“Fahrenheit 9/11í¢â‚¬ , have reaped equally strong box office takings as they have popular and critical acclaim.

While these films may not all be as overtly political as Mooreí¢â‚¬â„¢s work, they share the common goals of placing a powerful social issue into the public domain with the presumed hope to instigate change. This is particularly relevant to Mooreí¢â‚¬â„¢s í¢â‚¬Å“Fahrenheit 9/11í¢â‚¬  where the clear aim was to unseat president Bush in the November presidential elections. Despite causing a storm of controversy on its release, grossing over $119m, and collecting awards from all corners, Bush is still in the White House and the war in Iraq rages on without an end in sight. And while I am not necessarily suggesting that a film can possibly have the power to end a war (especially a film as imperfect as í¢â‚¬Å“9/11í¢â‚¬ ), its failure to galvanize public action points to a bigger trend.

Whilst the release of í¢â‚¬Å“Super Size Meí¢â‚¬  in 2004 saw McDonaldí¢â‚¬â„¢s profits take a hit, the beginning of 2006 saw their global sales top an all time high of $20 billion. And despite the release of í¢â‚¬Å“Outfoxedí¢â‚¬  in 2004, the Fox News Corporation enjoyed a 31% jump in profit in 2005. The recent Al Gore documentary í¢â‚¬Å“An Inconvenient Truthí¢â‚¬  has also been a box office smash, garnering support from critics and environmentalists the world over and yet, how many people leaving the theatre really made a significant transformation to their own energy consumption? Though the film may empower small scall changes, the question remains: will the film instigate any real change in environmental policy?

Michael Moore invites us to í¢â‚¬Å“Do somethingí¢â‚¬  at the end of his films by visiting his website. Al Gore urges us to vote for environmentally friendly candidates in the next elections (i.e., him) but if we are simply watching the film and then carrying on as normal, does that make us implicit in the problem? Perhaps one of the disadvantages of presenting an important issue in a commercial format to mainstream audiences within the commercial mainstream is that it simply normalises the problem - that transferring it to the historically í¢â‚¬Ëœunrealí¢â‚¬â„¢ space of the cinema screen prohibits audiences from really grasping the gravity of the topics presented. In the same way as we will leave the cinema after watching a blockbuster movie and return to the í¢â‚¬Ëœreal worldí¢â‚¬â„¢, these documentaries may serve to distance us from the reality of the issue being raised. Though tempting to suggest that political documentary can never escape the distancing effects of the cinema screen, I doní¢â‚¬â„¢t necessarily think this is the case.

One of the main criticisms of political documentary film is that in many cases they are í¢â‚¬Ëœpreaching to the convertedí¢â‚¬â„¢. It is unlikely that any hard line republican even entered a theatre showing Mooreí¢â‚¬â„¢s films and furthermore, the majority of those that did see the film wouldní¢â‚¬â„¢t dream of voting for Bush in the first place. In the interests of provoking controversy (and hence box office takings), many of these films forsake balanced and subtle filmmaking in order to hammer the point home.

Either way, it seems that the majority of modern political documentary is not quite meeting its own potential, assuming of course that the aim of these films is more than good box office takings. So what are the alternatives? Are these issues at their most effective when viewed in a more í¢â‚¬Ëœrealí¢â‚¬â„¢ space, like television, film festivals or the Internet? Or do their messages need to be communicated in more subversive ways, like in childrení¢â‚¬â„¢s animated films for example? (Hang oní¢â‚¬ ¦ thatí¢â‚¬â„¢s been done).

If the current trend continues we are likely to see many more political documentary in the commercial mainstream. Only time will tell if the coming years will bring films that can break through the illusion of the cinema to instigate the change that their subject matter calls for.