True that, some scenes were acted and shot on film after rehearsing and preparation, as is now widely known. I agree with you a documentary is not a film, and otherwise. It was wrong to present the film as a documentary, when it isn't really. The director got a lot of heat for that, certainly in his country (he is a palistinian dutch).
However, true events were re-enacted, I remember the director defending his true for false scenes.
It's an interesting debate. In my opinion it shouldn't really matter, but/and you shouldn't sell staged scenes for (a glimpse of) reality though, certainly not in a movie with controversial subject. But then the argument is: it enhances the drama, it serves it purpose, we (the director, writer, actors) want to engage the viewers etc.. I only wish producers and marketing people would stop! with stating "based on true events" and "based on a true story" when it's a fiction, which IMO is as wrong as the other way around.
I enjoyed the Coen Brothers introduction to Fargo (and their explanation in the interview of the extra on the dvd) but then their wit is lost on some or most people. And did you believe or simply buy those "unbelievable but true happened stories" in Magnolia?
I remember as a kid watching a weekly TV show about firefighters in Canada, and it always opened with "this happened in true life" or something. When I asked my mother about it, she just chuckled and shrugged. And didn't answer or give me a proper feedback. That statement (behavior) I find really stupid.
I think every viewer should make up his mind about the theme handled in every drama, movie, film or TV, and check his emotions experienced. Every movie, documentary and TV show is made with artistic manipulation. Yes. Some people state "photography is lying"- a still image is? How about moving images, does the motivation and intention of the makers not shine through it? etc. Food for thought.
with [cheese]
reply
share