|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
211.72.108.19
Film board,All right, before you have a fit, consider: the credentials and/or qualifications to do a 'period piece' of an era in history for a documentary/cinema verite filmmaker are zilch/zero/nada. Just technique. Knowledge of history is not necessary or asked for. Such filmmakers are the furthest cry from a true historian. So, I ask, why are such films taken seriously and "learned" from?
Respect,
Guy
Follow Ups:
z
NT
...
NT
...
d
x
and these are, of course, biased by the interpretation of the historian. Modern historians don't presume that their rendition of an event, time or place is the "truth" no more than the "absolute sound" is perfect sound reproduction. Documentaries present a view of the world that the film producer wishes to convey -- and they are inevitably guided but such a vision. Does this make them false and misleading? Perhaps. But no more so than audio engineers recording music in a fashion they find desirable (e.g., the RVG effect).To me, the assumption that documentaries (even the "good" ones) reflect some objective reality is a bit like people assuming that double blind testing is more scientifically "valid" than alternative analysis methods (e.g., single blind, subjectivist introspection).
Now maybe I just don't know the history of this poster in relation to the rest of the troupe here but to the occasional viewer I thought that his question was legitimate if not a bit obviously provoking reaction.
Now my follow-up question is -- why shouldn't a documentary attempt to lead a viewer to a desired conclusion?
Chris,First my detractors (the same usual handful of 'losers' who - when forced to think on new ideas - throw out their only paltry attack of "troll") can't answer. Anything not thought before.
My point is that filmmakers (even the best) are several layers/ levels BELOW even an average-rated historian. The average historian is trained in his subject, meaning trained in the limitations of presenting objectivity. Filmmakers are not. Furthermore, popular culture *enshrines* makers of movies in a way that no other area is (two exceptions: music-makers and sports-players). All know this. Resultingly, persons attracted to filmmaking - even the 'serious' ones with a moral message to convey - want glitz and glamor.
Simple question: sight unseen and name unknown, would you trust a movie of World War II or a book about World War II?
Respect,
Guy
.
...thanks for your interest and integrity.
nt
...
Nope. I don't care to support the self evident!
NT
(nt)
ZSD
As with any film, you need to look at a documentary's purpose. If it's to educate, then it had better cough up some accuracy. If it's to generate interest in a subject, accuracy is secondary to engagement.Look at Jacques Cousteau's early documentaries on underwater life, they were a bit short on facts but loaded with beauty and style, and generated quite a bit of interest (and money) for oceanographic research. The same could be said of current light science films such as Microcosmos.
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
but I wanted a comparison with one medium's presentation of 'reality' and the other's presentation of 'reality' [film Vs books]. However, you make a valid distinction: accuracy and interest in subject matter. The trouble for me is: interest that masquerades as accuracy.Thanks for your comments.
Respect,
Guy
Would you care to cite some examples which prompted you to ask this question?
Donald,I admit I don't follow what documentary film-makers do (I've seen a precious few and they apall [sp.?] me).
Kindly see my response to a Chris, above. Then, please respond, yourself.
Respect,
Guy
.
...
Maybe you ought to write about something you know about for a change, if, that is, there is any subject that you know anything about.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: