Documentary?

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.

[Iron_Ranger]

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.

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.

[Chewbacca]

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]

[Night Stalker]

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

Chewie..it is called an

"Editorial".

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.

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

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: 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.

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 ]

[WillowIX]

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.

[Davros]

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]

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Grojlach: quote: Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: 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.

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. [/QUOTE] Hm, really? Could you give me some links in debunking the debunking so to speak. I would be intrested in seeing it.