Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cthulu23
Documentarians are not journalists...there is no expectation of objectivity. Any claim otherwise ignores the rich history of documentary film.
|
I did not say anything about objectivity. Granted, the definition I quoted from Meriam Webster did. Maybe this one will work better for everyone:
From
Wikipedia:
A broad category of cinematic expression, traditionally the only characteristic common to all documentary films is that they are meant to be factual.
And that is just the first line. My point is that Moore used partial facts at times and completely ignored other facts when it suited his purpose. That is NOT in line with the idea of a documentary. I have no problem with doing a documentary to support your side of an argument but I do have an issue with crossing the line to propaganda.
Of course, the fact that my link uses Fahrenheit 9/11 as an example of a modern documentary opposes my view but I just can't see my way clear to equate the quoted line above with the work Moore did. He ment to be factual but only with facts he liked. To me, that is not documentary.