152
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: + +
→Please note edits!
::*Well, they also gave an award to Al Gore. After he was post-facto made a producer of the film, or whatever it was that was going to disqualify his appearing on stage. --~ [[User:TK|<sup>Sysop-</sup>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 21:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::*Well, they also gave an award to Al Gore. After he was post-facto made a producer of the film, or whatever it was that was going to disqualify his appearing on stage. --~ [[User:TK|<sup>Sysop-</sup>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 21:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Fine, whatever, but my point is that the films themselves is considered a documentary. Inventing a term like Pseudo-documentary to describe it evokes films like Spinal Tap and Best in Show which are entirely fictive. You can dispute his methods and his logic, and lord knows half the people here already dispute his motives, but every piece of footage in his films is non-fiction. Disproportionally distorted nonfiction, perhaps, but nonfiction the same. Look, come from the other side, what would have to be different about his films for you to concede that they are actually documentaries? It cant be bias, all documentaries have a point to make, social, political or otherwise, and it cant even be distortion since any presentation of facts is going to play up some over others, so what then?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)