Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
semantics strike again.
you'll rarely hear liberal partisan hack's work described as anti-bush...
opie and chthulu, please excuse posters for using something more similar to the dictionary definitions of documentary and not your own.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary |
I'm sure that the creators of both Stolen Honor and F9/11 consider their works "factual," so I guess that they do fit one of the dictionary definitions.
I won't go too deeply into this as everyone here is probably sick of this argument. Suffice it to say that the history of documentaries contradicts your semantic assumption. But don't just take it from me....here's what Ebert had to say:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157177/posts
Quote:
|
That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.
|
Documentarians are not journalists and have no ethical obligation to remain objective.
Let's make a deal...when F9/11 fades from memory, can we fans of documentaries have our word back?