Re: dem primary

[Aaron Edwards <edwardsaaron2000@yahoo.com>]

Sorry if this has been said already, but As a
postmodernist, I have a hard time even believing that
there is a such thing as a documentary. The Russian
ideal of "Kinovision" was imposible. MAinly becasue,
there is ALWAYS going to be some type of personal
bent. There is always going to be some choices as far
as editing, camera position, dialougue, and ecetera.
Take a very early "documentary," Nanook of the North.
That was soooo encrusted with personal bias. Not to
mention the cultural anthropology aspect of things. AS
in, the person studying will affect the subjects of
the subject (but I digress).
In "Intimate Journalism" and "literary journalism" the
writer is just as much a part of the story as anything
else because they a) effect the outcome, and b) have a
bias (no matter how objective they try to be). They
include themselves in this as a way to acknowledge
these facts. 

Ok, I've ranted enough, I guess those classes on
profile writing and cinema history are really paying
off. :-)

--- "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert@interchange.ubc.ca>
wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Melanie Shannon wrote:
> > the problem is you're getting a bit
> over-analytical.
> 
> Oh, I have not yet begun to analyze!  :)  But the
> problem, as I see it, is
> that you haven't either -- that is, you are
> under-analytical.  Like a lot
> of people, you seem to have a very narrow definition
> of "documentary" that
> doesn't actually reflect the broad range of films
> that fall under that
> category, so while I have zero interest in defending
> Michael Moore as a
> person or a filmmaker, I do want to put him in his
> proper context.
> 
> And yes, that context is "documentary".  But I don't
> think I can even
> begin to defend that assertion until we clear up
> this notion you have that
> "cinema verite" is somehow a "different beast" from
> "documentary".  
> Michael Moore is definitely *not* "cinema verite",
> as the term has been
> used and defined, but if we do not accept "cinema
> verite" as a form of
> documentary, then obviously we will not be able to
> accept filmmakers like
> Moore who go *beyond* "cinema verite" as
> documentarians either.
> 
> And since you are the first person in all my living
> experience who has
> ever challenged the definition of "cinema verite" as
> a form of
> documentary, I'm afraid the ball is back in your
> court.
> 
> > but a piece that is edited to the director's bias,
> includes unlabeled
> > re-shoots, and misleading conversational cuts
> simply does not deserve
> > the title 'documentary.'
> 
> We can call it a *bad* documentary, and we can
> explain why, certainly, but
> a documentary it remains.  As you say, it is what it
> is.
> 
> BTW, if a film like _Nanook of the North_ features
> obviously staged scenes
> such as the one in which the family goes to bed but
> never *calls* those
> scenes staged, is it, too, no longer a
> "documentary"?
> 
> > i work in the film industry, ranging from
> commercial to film to yes,
> > documentary.
> 
> And you never have these discussions there? 
> Bizarre.
> 
> --- Peter T. Chattaway ---------------------------
> peter@chattaway.com ---
> Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only
> afterwards do they
>    claim remembrance, on account of their scars. --
> Chris Marker, La Jetee
> 
> ---------------
> Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
> ---------------
> Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/


=====
-----------------------------------------
Century follows century, and things happen only in the present.
-Jorge Luis Borges, "The Garden of forking Paths"
-----------------------------------------
Aaron J Edwards
edwardsaaron2000@yahoo.com
http://clone316.tripod.com
aim: edwardsaaron2000

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/