Documentary?

Originally posted by Davros: 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] .

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.

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

[Davros]

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.

[Spelca]

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]

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

Originally posted by Davros: 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.

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.

[Mordenheim]

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

[Donut]

Originally posted by Spelca: ]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]

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.

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.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by MagiK: 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.

(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]

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 ]

[Spelca]

Originally posted by MagiK: 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.

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...
[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 ]