• Are documentaries the textbooks of film, or the vegetables of film? I.e., things with a clear purpose that is good for the viewer, but inherently less entertaining (though some textbooks are more stimulating and well-written than others, and some vegetables taste better – are fresher, less industrial, or fried/ covered in sauces, etc. – than others)? And is this a useful analogy?
Re: Aufderheide, Documentary Film:
• Auderheide claims that documentary film ‘makers manipulate and distort reality like all filmmakers, but they still make a claim for making a truthful representation of reality’ (10). Is this true? What are the implications?
• Assuming Aufderheide is correct in saying so, what is your reaction to the fact that ‘as documentaries become ever more popular, more of them are being produced to delight audiences without challenging assumptions’ (she gives the example of March of the Penguins) and that ‘advertising favors lightweight, low-budget documentaries that do not challenge the status quo and sensationalist documentaries that can drive up ratings’ (5-6, 21)?
‘A brief history of photo fakery':
• Manipulation of photographs is nothing new, having been around since the dawn of photography. Yet we tend, still today, to think of photographs as essentially depicting reality as it is – as objective documents of what was before a camera. By extension, we tend to feel the same way about documentaries. Given that we live in an increasingly ‘photoshopped’ age, are you more skeptical now of the ‘truth’ of photos or documentaries? If so, should we never trust them? Are there reasons to doubt that a photograph or film ever captures Reality – the world ‘as it is’?
Baudrillard, ‘The Gulf War did not take place’ (to be continued):
• What the hell is this guy talking about? Surely he doesn’t think that something that everyone knows happened, didn’t happen?
No comments:
Post a Comment