05-14-2003, 09:59 AM
|
#27
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Spelca:
quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
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.
|
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] [/QUOTE]
Thank you Spelca for providing exactly what I was looking for. 
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.
|
|
|
|