Then they are mistaken. It is the same as a distinction between a fiction and non-fiction book. Think “Against All Enemies” or “Who’s Looking Out For You?”. Film Richard Clarke or Bill O’Reilly reading and demonstrating the texts of those books, and you have a documentary. Most definitely not objective. I can’t say either of those is a film I’d want to watch (maybe if Errol Morris did it), but they would qualify, even if things in them were wrong or misleading.
Is that definition as an adjective or a noun?
From American Heritage Dictionary:
Yes, a large portion of the film is the second-by-second depiction of the violence leveled against JC both before and during the crucifixion. I would say your descrption is pretty accurate. I mainly saw it because I generally like Mel’s movies and so I gave him the benefit of doubt on this one.
I suppose if one is religious (I’m not), this film might give you a different experience, maybe along the lines of having a whole new appreciation for what JC went thru.
Anyway, I liked The Last Temptation of Christ much, much better.
Raygun99, aren’t you and This Year’s Model really just trying to define the word based on your own personal preference? Neither of you has shown how, according to commonly accepted rules of language, that the definition of the word documentary as being “factual and objective” is wrong. You have both simply denied it based on nothing but your own view. What would become of the language if people could just assign whatever meaning they wish to any given word? Words have meaning; if you want to twist or distort them into something they’re not, that’s your prerogative, but it certainly isn’t kosher to condemn those who hold to their correct meaning as being “mistaken.”
The post above was being written at the time of your last post, This Year’s Model, but my original premise still stands. The definition you posted substitutes the word “informative” for the word “objective” in my definition, but the meaning is still the same. After all, Nazi propaganda was “informative,” but I hardly think anyone would seriously contend that it was of a “documentary” nature.
And a mighty fuck you to ya. There’s simply no debate about the meaning of the word documentary - despite whatever delusions you are convinced are reality.
documentary: adj.
- Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
- Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Now, if a guy admits to being biased, and transparently so, as DTC would have us believe, and that his films are opinion pieces, they cannot, by any measure, be remotely construed as objective and uneditorialized. Of course, The Academy disagrees; they make no mention of objectivity. But that simply another example of the Hollywood Royalty making their own rules for themselves. Ask the common man for his definition of documentary, and you’ll get something similar to what Merriam-Webster provides, or what my cite from Microsoft’s Bookshelf says.
Please, give me an example of a documentary that you think fits those definitions and I’ll show you why it doesn’t fit.
I say the idea of perfect objectivity as attainable is impossible. Take, “When We Were Kings”. A great documentary, and I don’t know anyone who would dispute that it qualifies in the genre. But it’s all from Ali’s side. There’s nothing from George Foreman’s side, or Don King’s, or the President of Zaire’s or any number of other players. The director of the film had to choose which parts to leave in and which to edit out. He had to decide that this was an important thing to film in the first place. We’re left with a useless definition of “Documentary”, which no film can stand up to. Even Warhol’s film where he aimed a camera at the Empire State Building for two hours isn’t objective, because he decided this was important, and he decided this was his point of view.
Some are more objective than others, true, but “documentary” isn’t the only adjective a film can take. You can have polemic documentaries (as F 9/11 was), sporting documentaries (When We Were Kings), historical documenatries (Shoah), etc. etc.
(also, yada yada, dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, yada yada)
I gave you a dictionary definition that does not include the word objective. Moore’s movies are factual. If you do not agree that they are factual, then you are the one twisting the meaning of words. I will certainly agree that they are not objective. They are still documentaries. So was Triumph of the Will, and so was the hatchet job the Sinclair Group broadcasted just before the election. Documentary does not mean no point of view.
Films like Triumph of the Will, while espousing horrible philosophies, are some of the most technically superlative examples of documentaries that exist.
Hell, the first film that won the Oscar for Best Documentary was an NFB of Canada propaganda film urging American entry into WWII.
And a hearty fuck you right back. Did you look at the definition of the noun? The one that started two lines below where you stopped quoting?
And how many documentaries would “the common man” actually be familiar with? If I asked the common man for his definition of a tomato, don’t you think most would call it a vegetable, when it’s not? Perception is all relative to exposure, and people who are only used to “documentaries” from The History Channel and Wild Kingdom only have a sliver of awareness as to what that genre actually encompasses, M-W notwithstanding.
As for the “Hollywood Royalty” horseshit, maybe, just maybe, they choose to define the term loosely to try to account for (and therefore recognize) as many different examples of non-fiction filmmaking as possible. And by not requiring “objectivity”, they eliminate the highly subjective process of determining what that word actually means.
Yep. Sure did. Did you look at the definition for the adjective? Just two lines above where you started quoting? The irony’s delicious, ain’t it?
What’s more, I also read the definition of propaganda. And [url=“http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/”]this 2002 review in Slate of Moore’s film by Christopher Hitchens - one-time darling of the very leftist Nation magazine. Can’t say there’s anything there that makes me think Hitchens believes the film to be a documentary either.
And a note to everyone making an issue of Moore’s removing the film for Oscar consideration in the documentary category. This was done by Moore not out of any concern that his might not actually be a documentary; he did it so that he could release it to DVD prior to the 2004 election - and thus attempt to influence the outcome (or one more cynical than myself might say he did this further line his pockets). Which only points up the fact that the film is simply political propaganda.
Thank God for Uncle Beer.
It might be ironic if the word was being used as an adjective rather than as a noun. It’s obvious that there is no point talking to you except to exercise my fingers.
And by the way, that review has been debunked here more often than I even have fingers to exercise. But if it helps you to stay in your comfy imaginary world, then by all means, treat it as if it means something.
Jon Stewart is better looking, that’s all.
It’s a documentary. The film is a documentary. It’s a documentary film. In each of these sentences, documentary is used as an adjective. Show me one where it’s used as a noun. And then show me how that fucking matters at all.
Okay. I’ll be over here with Michael Moore. And isn’t that, too, ironic?
I don’t think God wants anything to do with me. And I less, with Him.
Yeah, it’s taking a lot longer than we thought.
I guess one out of three is better than none out of three.
Oh for Christ’s sake. In each of those sentences “documentary” is used as a modifier of the noun (and subject of the sentence) “film.” Except, of course the first, where it’s implied. The word is used as a fucking adjective in all three instances.
You’re welcome, but please stop. You’re embarassing me with your obsequious gratitude.