Sunday, November 1, 2009
A dichtomy
I think the two articles that we look at kind of present a dichotomy of sorts. One articles talks of the ideas of how a documentary gets sold. We look at the fact that we can no longer simply present the facts, but rather have to analyze them. For example, you'll never see a film about the Iraq war without some sort of debate over whether some part of the war is morally correct. Yet, the other article talks of this idea of cinema verite. A "truth cinema," the idea that we just leave the cameras rolling and then just talk walk away and these two ideas can not exist simultaneously, how can anyone even try to present reality, if their is a discussion over what that reality is. If and when we live reality we don't debate this, so why is it that when it comes to a film of reality this debate is included.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the reason we question reality in a film, and not reality we live in (as much) is because in a film, there obviously has been editing done and things left out, or things put in different orders, etc, and doing those things, even if you don't make things up, can shade the reality in the film, and show the viewer a reality that may not have happened exactly that way.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the run on.
I'd agree with Kelly here -- in addition, it's precisely because there have been so many infamous cases of serious manipulation of the 'truth' that we tend to be wary of films.
ReplyDelete