05-14-2003, 12:55 PM
|
#29
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Spelca:
[qb] (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]
|
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:
A documentary film is defined as a non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively.....
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.
[ 05-14-2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]
|
|
|
|