Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to What you don't seem to get...

Subtle Inaccuracies Versus Major Ones
Mark Eby — (archived)

I answered based on what I thought was appropriate for a documentary not what invalidates a film being a documentary. RL's example of the lemming issue is an example of something so wrong that the film should not be considered a documentary, but sometimes documentary re-enactments are done based on faulty documentation. It may have been fully intended as a documentary, but no one should use it as such once the faults are exposed.

I disagreed with you that several of your examples would invalidate the term documentary. Why does that make you think I missed your point. I thought you were trying to claim that most documentaries have some degree of fabrication in them and that that excuses Moore. It doesn't. There is a big difference between re-enactments to the best of you ability to determine what happened or does happen in the wild and putting words in someone's mouth to make them look follosh for which there is no evidence they ever thought or said (as in clips I saw).

As for the define things however best suits your agenda approach that seems so common on the liberal side of the board these days have at it all you want. You can't have a rational debate changing word definitions whenever it suits you. Hollywood said Moore's film was a documentary because it suited them to do so,not because it was by the definition most commonly used. They wanted people to think it was a accurate portrayal of Bush not a piece of propaganda.

Regards,
Mark

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (92 posts)