I don't think there is a definite line that can divide the morality of the validity in the recreation of life in documentaries. Realistically, however, there is no need to argue on where this line may exist because there is no case that will come close to it. One needs to look at the pros of a documentary in light of its portrayal of true life and decide if they outweigh the cons; every one I have seen achieved this.
Take the documentary of the "suicidal" lemmings. Sure, lemmings don't really jump off cliffs. But even though I may have been deceived in one aspect, I also got to see what lemmings look like, how they run around, what they must live like in the wild, etc. In their attempt to make a big deal out of one thing, the filmmakers ended up naturally educating and portraying much more than just one ‘feat.’ And let’s be honest, without one inciting incident that really gives the film an ‘edge,’ the documentary wouldn’t have as much appeal and wouldn’t be very interesting. I damn well wouldn’t have watched it if not for this idea of seeing “suicidal lemmings.” So I did, and was tricked, and hey, I learned a pretty good amount about lemmings because of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting point, Gabe -- so would it be fair to say that we can ascribe responsibility to viewers for the errors that occur? A sort of *self*-deception, whereby we search out the most entertaining, but not necessarily accurate, works? And yet democracy in action: the filmmakers just giving us what we want when we vote with our money in a capitalist society?
ReplyDelete