Thread: Documentary?
View Single Post
Old 05-13-2003, 02:38 PM   #1
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a

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.