<font color="#f683ad">
Am I the only one who thought that something labeled as a "Documentary" was supposed to be composed of an accurate retelling of the factual events?

Miriam Webster defines it thusly:

Main Entry: 1doc·u·men·ta·ry
Pronunciation: "dä-ky&-'men-t&-rE, -'men-trE
Function: adjective
Date: 1802
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing (documentary evidence)
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE (a documentary film of the war)

So definition 2 seems to be the way I thought of it...and Definition 1 doesnt seem to detract from def 2.


So how is it that Michael Mohre's (sp?) film "Boweling for Columbine" received an award for best Documentary. The film was somewhat popular, but hardly factual...can anyone explain how Bowling for Columbine could be considered a documentary? I know we have some real guru's of film here, surely one of ya'll can set me up with an explanation. </font>

<font color='white'> Yeah, I have asked that question several times, actaully had a link that completly debunked his flim. I wonder if I can find it again. </font>

<font color="#f683ad">Well I didn't really want to critique the film so much as figure out how they fit some movies into catagories they may not appear to fit in. I dislike this guys work mostly because he is one of those people who consistantly just makes shit up to fit his message/agenda...like he has no real ...umm ethics i guess. You would expect him to parse the meaning of any direct question when cornered.</font>

I havent seen the film yet and they keep pushing the dvd release back so I will hafta wait but from what everyone I know has told me it is more like an opinion peice.

What would you call a film that takes facts and draws opinions and conclusions about them? an Opinionmentry? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Well, if it has satyre in it, it could be an ........ Onionmentry! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color="#f683ad">Chewie..it is called an <h3>"Editorial".</h3> Or possibly a "Commentary". Documentry's are supposed to be straight up factual reporting..sort of what Journalists were supposed to be doing before they decided their main goal was to effect change and not report. </font>

[ 05-13-2003, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

I believe someone had already debunked most of that debunktion as well, as being even more biased than Bowling for Columbine was... Oh well. I suppose that if you yell loud enough, you could bend a simple neutral fact both to the left and to the right. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Bowling for Columbine is an entertaining and interesting watch, though. We're gonna show it during the Cultural Festival at our University next week as well. ;)

[ 05-13-2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Perhaps they thought "based on an actual event" and then forgot all about the "based on" part. You know like the regular true life movies. ;)

There's life Jim, but not as we know it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Opinionated documentary is hardly new to the world, but in Micheal Moore's case it is anti gun opinion that is presented and that is indeed a crime. I imagine that there would be people in the world equally nonplussed if Penn and Teller had won the award, or if FOX had won an award for objective news presentation.

I am awaiting the DVD release myself, so I can see what you guys object to so much. I have read the debunk, and more significantly the debunk of the debunk ;) .

BTW MagiK - was the spelling mistake in your original thread an intentional slur on the movie or serendiptical subtitle? I love how it occurred after the (sp) on a persons name which is both short and reasonably well known (even if it is more like infamy in the pro gun right wing circles).

Can't wait to see what all this fuss is about [img]smile.gif[/img]

I believe someone had already debunked most of that debunktion as well, as being even more biased than Bowling for Columbine was... Oh well. I suppose that if you yell loud enough, you could bend a simple neutral fact both to the left and to the right. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Bowling for Columbine is an entertaining and interesting watch, though. We're gonna show it during the Cultural Festival at our University next week as well. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]<font color='white'> Hm, really? Could you give me some links in debunking the debunking so to speak. I would be intrested in seeing it. </font>

I thought "Boweling For Columbine" was a much more accurate description of the thing. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Now there's a surprise [img]smile.gif[/img] - who wouldda thunk it ;)

<font color='white'> You know Davros, for someone who dislikes Fox so much, you sure do bring it up in alot of posts. ;) </font>

Nice try again IR [img]smile.gif[/img] , but maybe it was really MagiK that bought it up first - see below for his highly accurate and praiseworthy description of what journalists are supposed to be doing [img]smile.gif[/img]

See - my points in the FOX debate must be reaching the target audience [img]smile.gif[/img]
QED.

[ 05-14-2003, 05:28 AM: Message edited by: Davros ]

<font color='white'> Yeah, like Fox is the first and only news outlet that does that.

They all do that.

A bit of information here. The much hated 'right-wing' Bill O'Reilly first job at a major news corp? Yep, the utterly fair and balanced CNN! </font>

LOL - so do I take it you are advocating the view that "we (FOX) should be bad cos the others are bad too" argument. While it has a cerian eloquent perspecacity, that argumnt fails to engender the necessary improvement because it dismisses the existance (and persistance) of the problem.

Always nice to debate the issue with you though - must dash at the moment though - it's time to get all hot and sweaty down at the gym.

I'm offski [img]smile.gif[/img] - toodle pip and all that.

<font color='white'> No, what I am saying is that if all the news outlets spin, Fox shouldnt get all the blame. And they get bashed much,much more than anything else.

Another interesting fact-

Shepherd Smith was voted 2nd most trusted reporter (Reporter? On Fox? Naah) in America. Behind Tom Brokaw surprisingly.

Hope you dont mind us hijacking your thread MagiK. ;) </font>

All news outlets spin do they? Well some spin a little and some spin like a top. Why play with the dull drab toys when the biggest and best is a bright shiny whirligig with big flashing lights screaming out "pick me".

You're right though, we are getting off topic. The topic was the best documentary award I believe. Well the award will probably help pick up the sales of the DVD - once it finally gets released here that is. It has quite piqued my interest [img]smile.gif[/img] .

I believe someone had already debunked most of that debunktion as well, as being even more biased than Bowling for Columbine was... Oh well. I suppose that if you yell loud enough, you could bend a simple neutral fact both to the left and to the right. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Bowling for Columbine is an entertaining and interesting watch, though. We're gonna show it during the Cultural Festival at our University next week as well. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#f683ad">While Im sure you are quite knowledgable about what whent down in columbine and all....that is not what Im asking...could we get back on topic please? Im asking about how Documentry is defined, what seperates (if anything) documentry, commentary and editorials....do you have any insight into these questions? That is what the thread is about not the content of MM's movie. </font

<font color="#f683ad">Actually the question is...what constitutes a documentary versus a commentary...or an editorial, where do the lines of fact and fiction run? or does truth and facts have anything at all to do with these three forms of material? I do not care what MM put into his movie. I want to now about the film industry and their "classification" criteria..hence I was asking film gurus for their insight. Thanks for any useful info you can provide in advance.</font>

[ 05-14-2003, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Well MagiK, I won't bother reponding to your first reply - just the usual abrasive mixture about how people are not answering your questions that I and any number of posters have suffered through before. I know that you like answers to be "yes/no" and "black/white". You would rather I didn't draw analogies, make comparisons, or discuss the why behind the questions. Our styles are somewhat different -that is a circular discussion that has never gone anywhere in the past and I figure is unlikely to tonight.

On your last post about journalistic classification I agree that the divisions are not clear. However, if FOX commentary qualifies as news, then I don't see under the same rules why MM commentary couldn't qualify as a factual documentary. We could perhaps agree on one point - that standards appear to have slipped from what we both hope they were.

Here is the definition from the Academy themselves:

1. A documentary film is defined as a non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on factual content and not on fiction.

From: http://www.oscars.org/74academyawards/rules/rule12.html

So according to their definition it is a documentary. ;) And since other critics and film professionals seem to think so too, I believe them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-14-2003, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

<font color="#f683ad"> PM sent to address private issues between Davros and my self...ok lets just say here...

we have an antagonistic relationship and I would like to ask that we drop it.

That being said Ill address your last comments.. Yes journalism in all quarters has lost its way and has quit doing the kind of objective news reporting that I would desire. That is, if they ever actually did that in the first place.

MM's film has nothing to do with FOX entertainment or Journalism, it was produced to promote his own philosophical and political agenda, which he has every right to do. What I don't understand is how that it could be labeled a "documentry". Perhaps the industry just chose that catagory because it didn't fit any others and there were no good documentrys out there...I don't know....I was kind of hoping someone could explain the film industrys workings to me. ...now Im off to write that PM.</font>

To me a real Documentry is just pure fact. Ever watch Discovery channel? I do all the time. I watched a guy follow a African tribe for week's. That is a documentry. There was no opinion just fact.

Anytime you skew fact's or place a biased opinion in something the documentry loses major focus. A real documentry look's at the good and the bad. It does not try to distort a issue for any gain other then understanding the issue.

Neither of his movies are even close. In fact a good documentry or un-biased news is a endangered species. When something is political you can expect the spin to make you dizzy

Thanks Spelca - I think that answers the question. I applaud you for going to the oscars website for the information. Why didn't anyone else think of that? ;)

BTW - in the documentary Moores (sp?) takes two of the Columbine survivors to K-Mart (where the ammunition has been purchased) to ask if they could return the bullets still in their bodies for a refund. The next day K-Mart announced that after a 90 day period they would cease to sell ammunition.

Here is the definition from the Academy themselves:

1. A documentary film is defined as a non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on factual content and not on fiction.

From: http://www.oscars.org/74academyawards/rules/rule12.html

So according to their definition it is a documentary. ;) And since other critics and film professionals seem to think so too, I believe them. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#f683ad">

Thank you Spelca for providing exactly what I was looking for. :D

Just one comment on your last line of commentary there...the issue is on this particular film is hardly a Universally accepted decision by film critics and professionals. No it isn't just right wing nut cases who dislike MM's treatment of the Columbine issue...a lot of the parents in the town were quite upset over his "interpetation" of events....But I don't really care...I didn't watch the film and probably never will, I doubt that it will impact me in any way.</font>

(Last sentence) But how can you say that it isn't a documentary, etc., if you haven't even seen it? [img]smile.gif[/img] Or criticise what it's about and how he tells things? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color="#f683ad">The point was not to critique the movie (despite some peoples efforts) I was trying to resolve a conflict of definitions. Unless the film were devoid of judgemental critique of the incident in my previous understanding of the word "Documentary" the film should not have been classified as such...(my interest is not in the content of the movie)

However, you dug up the definition used by the acadamy and their definition which includes this line: <font color=orange>
A documentary film is defined as a non-fiction motion picture dealing <h4>creatively</h4>.....</font>

By the addition of the word creatively they have basicly redefined what can be considered a "documentary"....by parsing that one word into the definition you have basicly rendered the title "documentry" useless, since Art and creativity is a subjective value and not an absolute objective value.

Under that definition I completely agree with the acadameys decision to award him the Documentry prize......they could have awarded it to "Saving Private Ryan" as well...in a different year of course.</font>

[ 05-14-2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

But isn't "Saving Private Ryan" fiction? [img]smile.gif[/img] I admit I don't really know if that story really happened, but the film still had to be full of fictional events... :D
[Edit:] PS: And it also depends what category they apply to. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-14-2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

No, Saving Private Ryan was fiction, based in an actual event (the Normandy invasion). Which is pretty much the way Moore works. Only Spielberg tried to be as accurate as possible in the telling of his story. Something Michael Moore has trouble with.