Monday, November 2, 2009
The Basis for Nonfictoin
I certainly agree with Godmilow when she claims that all nonfiction works have the plan to change the minds of viewers at their bases. Furthermore, I'd argue that any publication has this plan at its basis. I strongly believe that when a person places something in a public forum, for viewing of some sort, they are looking for people have an idea portray unto them. In portraying this idea, the artist, in any form, is looking for people to either gain a better understanding of something, to change a previously held belief, or simply find entertainment, thereby changing their present state of mind in someway. Some may say that they present material for their own benefit, but I have never bought into this idea. If a person puts a piece of work into the public spectrum, they are looking for others to view it, judge it, and, in judging it, reevaluate some previously held belief. While some pieces are certainly more effective than others and bring about larger changes, all pieces have at least a minimal effect. So, non-fiction is no exception to this rule. Godmilow is right, when a film maker presents a work of non-fiction, the purpose is most certainly to present an idea to change previously held opinions. This is the base, the reason to be held about all others, no matter what claims may be made.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can see why you (and others) hold this, Ethan, but I'm going to play devil's advocate:
ReplyDeleteSo this is true of, say, 'March of the Penguins'? What about a concert film? If we say that they are trying to push a view, or change the viewer's mind, it seems like we'll have to stretch so much for some films that that view won't be super significant; in which case, what's the point in saying they're pushing a view? Perhaps they *should* be trying to change the viewer's mind -- but isn't that a different claim?
I agree with Ethan that all movies try and make some kind of point. After all, there must have been a reason they chose the subject they did, and, at the very least, they would want viewers to have the same kind of interest in it that they did. I don't see this as a problem except when it leads to excessive sensationalization. A lot of one-hour specials now on the History Channel, for example, seem to have a similar thesis: This historical event was one of the most important in all of history. Obviously, this can't really be the case, and the end result is that the events and people are made out to be even more dramatic and heroic than they really were.
ReplyDelete