Documentary or Drama?

That is an interesting question. My local theatre listed it as a documentary, so I went in expecting something slightly different than what I got - which was fine as this was still one of the best films I've seen in some time. From everything I've been able to find about the film (which isn't very much) it seems to be a unique mix of documentary and fiction. They used real Mongolian nomads (and lord knows you couldn't fake that camel birth scene.) From the reviews/articles I've seen, it sounds like the filmmakers went in with some general ideas, waited to see what would happen when they got there (ie, a white calf) and scripted it on the fly. Again though, I haven't seen anything definitive on this like an interview with the filmmakers. Anyone seen something like that?

In an interview with the German Cinearte (www.cinearte.net) this autumn. Byambasuren Davaa answered: "It is a hybrid form. We had our story, but we told it with authentic people in an authentic place in their everyday life." In the interview she explained the music was used for other animals as well, but the camel was one of the few species that actually cried.

According to recent film blurb it is most definitely a documentary as film makers Davaa & Falorni arrived in the Gobi Desert to catch a slice of Mongolian life & only had ten hours of film stock with them.
Like you however I also thought it didn't quite come across as a typical documentary-I mean the whole style did seem very structured & the acting (especially for amateurs that is) just seemed "too fluid" & especially natural for these people who had presumably never been before a movie camera lens before.
I wasn't sure whether these were actors playing characters with their own names or whatever but looking at their filmographies they have only appeared in this one film & nothing else & so I now assume they must all have been the amateurs that has been claimed then.Really damn good acting though that could teach certain Hollywood A Listers a thing or two!!!!!!!!!
The excellent acting wasn't just confined to the humans either-The pained facial expressions on the little colt were just priceless too don't you think?!

There is no line between Documentary and fiction; there are only shades of grey. Every documentary possesses an element of manipulation, the choices of what to frame or what to edit alone have an enormous impact on the story which is conveyed. The myth of a purely objective documentary is dead in post-modern cultural studies.

Nobody ever considered R. Flaherty’s notorious documentary Nannook of the North (1922) a fiction despite the fact that they did three takes of the igloo-making scene and the Inuit people who featured in it were asked to do things such as fishing with spears (which hadn’t been used for decades).
Weeping Camel definitely retains lots of elements of these early documentaries which relied heavily on constructed scenes and a careful choice of framings, composition and filmic looks.

So, is this a dishonest documentary?
Personally I don't think so. The artificiality is in the way the story is told not in the content of it. A similar example can be seen in newspapers: the "truth" might be told in different ways. A truth told in an entertaining narrative manner isn't less true that a simple list of events.

What's important is that a documentary filmmaker always KNOWS he/she can't be 100% objective because no such thing exists.
Even when we live an experience in first person we can't be certain of what our senses are able to perceive all the events and how accurate these perceptions are.

The medium of film should convey feelings, sensations and stimulate our imagination, Anyone who thinks it could record "reality" is mistaken.

I personally enjoyed this film very much. The way the story was told in images was charming and demonstrates a great understanding of the medium's potential and limits. The "dialogue" played a minor part in carrying on the narrative but added beautiful shades to the characters, their motives and dreams.

Definitely would recommend this film to ANYONE.

The definition of a documentary only seems to be true when we tape animals. Even then the editor gets involved to show a specific moment in time. To go into an area, set up a camera, and just wait for something to happen, might give us something interesting, but mostly it would just be a whole lot of nothing. Even something like 'March of the Penguins' has to be edited for our viewing time constraints. Whenever we use humans within the documentary concept many things end up distorted. In 'Born into Brothels' it was true, but the reporter ends up being a part of the reality. In 'Fahrenheit 911', we are left with such propaganda that even though the people involved are real, the distortions leave no semblance of truth. All of these movies fall into the same category, but are very different objectively.

That was one thing I really enjoyed about it--the blurring of the documentary/fiction distinction. It reminded me a bit of Werner Herzog's "documentaries" in that.


http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

I'd label it as a Mongolian Neorrealist film.

[deleted]