9 ms·

We should stop calling "Documentary" what is essentially some form of entertainment with some predefined narrative that looks like it is a documentary. In this

We should stop calling "Documentary" what is essentially some form of entertainment with some predefined narrative that looks like it is a documentary. In this category for example: - Supersize me - Pretty much every Michael Moore movie

grawprog 8y ago
I've always thought of them as 'infotainment'. Slightly informational entertainment. I'm not a big fan of a lot of newer documentaries for that reason. Part of me kind of misses the old dry 60's/70's style documentaries with some boring old dude describing facts in a boring monotone way. There's been a few times I've just stopped watching some newer documentaries and just read a bunch of articles and information about the topic it was covering. I figure I probably learned more and got a more well rounded view in the same amount of time doing it that way.
- caf 8y ago
  Part of me kind of misses the old dry 60's/70's style documentaries with some boring old dude describing facts in a boring monotone way. Are you sure you weren't being misled by the stylistic choices of those documentaries into assuming they hadn't made decisions about the narrative they wanted to present?
- thatcat 8y ago
  BBC documentaries are the only exception - it seems that it requires public funding to avoid trying to make documentaries entertaining in a way that defeats the purpose of watching a documentary.
CGamesPlay 8y ago
I’m genuinely curious what your complaints there are, could you elaborate? What specifically disqualifies something from being a “documentary”?
- warp_factor 8y ago
  Those are not complains, but enough in my opinions that they should be classified as "infotainments" (as was said in another comment below). The key things I see for being an infotainment: - A predefined narrative that sometimes disregards facts (or more precisely nitpicks facts to fit the narrative) - Focusing on extreme emotions and entertainment with shock pictures and statements. Simply said, look at actual documentaries of historical events or on some scientific//geographical//political topics. The difference is huge.
  - underwater 8y ago
    Every documentary is going to do both those things to some degree. The creator is trying to condense real life events I to 90 minutes.
- tivert 8y ago
  > What specifically disqualifies something from being a “documentary”? Not the OP, but it seems like the same type of thing that disqualifies an article from being a news report (and places it in the category of persuasive opinion piece).
  - warp_factor 8y ago
    Thanks for putting it in a single sentence! I would say that + focus on emotions vs facts.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Documentary is not news reporting done in movie form. It's not supposed to be some "objective" filming of a real situation or a retelling of a story either. Some documentaries strive to that, others are whimsical, personal, subjective, surreal, and so on. Some include fiction, others create the situations they cover (and not just report on them). Modern documentary creators and festivals have embraced all kinds of narrative styles, from verite to mocumentary, and from first person narrative to surreal story fragments. Documentary is more of an umbrella category with a very rich variety than a specific "verite" style genre or the typical "WWII/nature" stuff. (I've worked on a few and studied the field)
bluetwo 8y ago
Micheal Moore movies have a built in point-of-view.... his. He doesn't hide this, it is part of the attraction. I guess you could argue it is really commentary more than documentary.
- sharkweek 8y ago
  It's like the opinion editor versus the daily beat editor. One is writing arguments and defending them, the other is trying to just present the facts of what happened. Both are journalists, just different types.
  - bosie 8y ago
    I thought that what you just wrote is literally the definition for journalist vs reporter. if all you do is reporting the facts since you are a daily beat editor, you aren't a journalist?
    - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
      Even reporters through the choice of facts can give a slant. "Man saves kitten from housefire" is different once you throw in "that he lit."
      - bosie 8y ago
        That doesn't change the definitions. Doing a terrible job (by neglecting to mention vital facts) doesn't change what reporting is (and/or should be) and how it differs from journalism.
  - UncleMeat 8y ago
    No documentary in history has "just presented the facts of what happened". Footage is edited. Even documentaries that are exclusively interview footage are edited down from huge surpluses of material. When you choose the 1% of material to present, it is not possible to just present facts.
danso 8y ago
Every documentary that's not just raw livestream footage has a narrative. It is inherently inextricable to the work of editing and storytelling.
- sp332 8y ago
  > predefined narrative Having a narrative is not the same as reworking footage to tell a story you had in mind before doing any actual research.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Nothing can be free of bias but there certainly are different levels.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  I'd go further than that and say that even raw livestream footage has a narrative, in the selection of what's being shown, the camera angle, even the title and everything else.
  - DonHopkins 8y ago
    The media should cover White House press briefings with their cameras tilted in a Dutch angle, like Batman used whenever they're in the evil villain's lair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_angle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_angle Dutch angles were used extensively in the satirical 1960s Batman TV series (and its 1966 film spin-off) in which each villain had his or her own angle, as they were "crooked".
- MattyRad 8y ago
  Since you bring up raw livestream footage, a quality example of a documentary which is just livestream footage is Jesus Camp. It's quite fascinating because the people who were filmed believe they are accurately represented (which they explicitly say in follow up interviews). But usually people that watch the film are horrified of the interviewees dogma. It's an interesting example of genuinely truthful documentarionism.
crysin 8y ago
What type of documentary doesn't have a narrative?
- pessimizer 8y ago
  People are still fooled by cinema verité and think documentaries (and news) somehow pop into existence by themselves, rather than through people laboring over transcripts of interview dialog and arranging them into a narrative order - and then seeking out further interviews and footage in order to fill the holes in that narrative. So the type of documentary that doesn't have a narrative is the type of documentary that simply reflects the truth (as I see it.)
  - jandrese 8y ago
    But even then the documentarian has to decide what to include and what not to include. Obviously you can't have for example a Civil War documentary that is the raw truth of each person involved told in realtime. It would be 11 billion years long. I don't see how any documentary can match your standard.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    > So the type of documentary that doesn't have a narrative is the type of documentary that simply reflects the truth (as I see it.) What you're asking for is an omniscient live-stream of events. Any even where someone felt it was worth making a documentary about will be one where there's a narrative. Can you provide an example of a narrative free documentary?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  When I watch PBS Frontline I definitely feel I get more information. Obviously there is opinion too but I find it much better researched and thought out.
- Zimahl 8y ago
  'Jesus Camp' doesn't have any narration, it only shows a glimpse of the religious kids camps. It's completely left up to the viewer to think the the camps are crazy or awesome. It's brilliantly done. I don't remember if there was narration or not, but 'Word Wars', about competitive Scrabble, doesn't take a side (there's no side to take, really). It simply shows the competitors and the kind of zany world they live in.
ultrasaurus 8y ago
"They Shall Not Grow Old" is probably the closest popular documentary I can think of to your ideal (that focuses on humans at least) -- and it still implicitly needs to weigh in on some narratives, for instance the evolving thinking on "did the generals undervalue their soldiers' lives or were they learning as fast as they could?". If you really care about what happened at X, you have to read/watch/listen to multiple sources and synthesize. No one will do that for you without injecting their own conclusion. fwiw, watching 2 documentaries and reading a HN thread is already more research than I ever expected to do on a failed festival.
- trentlott 8y ago
  Not the derail the topic too much, but was that film great? It looked like an incredible piece of work and a beautiful use of technology.
baby 8y ago
I've never seen a Michael Moore movie toted as a documentary, supersize me either. So I'm not sure where that comes from. Although I would argue that Michael Moore movies are indeed great documentary on some aspect of American culture for a foreigner point of view. The Fyre festival one looks much more like a documentary, perhaps with an agenda but it looks like it is re-tracing the steps while showing a shit ton of footage. So I'm still on the fence.
- Jare 8y ago
  He won the 2003 Oscar for Best Documentary with Bowling for Columbine, and was nominated for that same category in 2008 for Sicko.
  - baby 8y ago
    Oh yeah, Bowling for Columbine was definitely a documentary. I think it depends on the movie.
- xirdstl 8y ago
  That seems odd. They're usually classified in the 'Documentary' genre (Amazon Prime Video, IMDB, etc). The "Super Size Me" WikiPedia even begins "Super Size Me is a 2004 American documentary film". The entries for Moore's films in Wikipedia begin similarly.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >I've never seen a Michael Moore movie toted as a documentary, supersize me either. So I'm not sure where that comes from. All Michael Moore movies and Supersize Me are considered documentaries, categorized as such, labeled as such in screenings, participate in the documentary festival circuit, and so on. Moore even won an Oscar for "Documentary Feature". His wikipedia page reads "Michael Francis Moore is an American documentary filmmaker". "Supersize Me" genre in IMBD is "Documentary". It was also a nominee for "Best Documentary" in the Oscars. Netflix marks it a documentary. So, "if you're not sure where this [calling Moore's movies and Supersize Me documentaries] comes from", I can't even begin to understand where this doubt comes from. It's like a question from a parallel universe where those are not casually considered documentaries...
paulcole 8y ago
Can you list a few documentaries that are, according to your definition, actually documentaries? Edit: Why would anyone downvote this?
- Reelin 8y ago
  How It's Made, Nova, and Nature. To a (slightly) lesser extent, 60 Minutes and Frontline. The term documentary covers (imho) a continuum, from academic style nonfiction on one end to a gray area between infotainment and fiction on the other.
maxxxxx 8y ago
totally agree. There are way too many "documentaries" that are well produced and entertaining but are in essence propaganda pieces for a preconceived viewpoint. I much prefer "boring" pieces that actually try to document things without much spin.
asdff 8y ago
Everything presented in 1-2 hours will be selective in what it shows and what it leaves out. Documentaries are really just primers on a topic; it is up to you to further the information you've just received into a meaningful perspective. That being said, there is a stark contrast between the "How its made/Modern Marvels" type of documentary and the "Ancient Aliens" type of documentary.

grawprog 8y ago

I've always thought of them as 'infotainment'. Slightly informational entertainment. I'm not a big fan of a lot of newer documentaries for that reason. Part of me kind of misses the old dry 60's/70's style documentaries with some boring old dude describing facts in a boring monotone way. There's been a few times I've just stopped watching some newer documentaries and just read a bunch of articles and information about the topic it was covering. I figure I probably learned more and got a more well rounded view in the same amount of time doing it that way.

caf 8y ago
Part of me kind of misses the old dry 60's/70's style documentaries with some boring old dude describing facts in a boring monotone way. Are you sure you weren't being misled by the stylistic choices of those documentaries into assuming they hadn't made decisions about the narrative they wanted to present?
thatcat 8y ago
BBC documentaries are the only exception - it seems that it requires public funding to avoid trying to make documentaries entertaining in a way that defeats the purpose of watching a documentary.

CGamesPlay 8y ago

I’m genuinely curious what your complaints there are, could you elaborate? What specifically disqualifies something from being a “documentary”?

warp_factor 8y ago
Those are not complains, but enough in my opinions that they should be classified as "infotainments" (as was said in another comment below). The key things I see for being an infotainment: - A predefined narrative that sometimes disregards facts (or more precisely nitpicks facts to fit the narrative) - Focusing on extreme emotions and entertainment with shock pictures and statements. Simply said, look at actual documentaries of historical events or on some scientific//geographical//political topics. The difference is huge.
- underwater 8y ago
  Every documentary is going to do both those things to some degree. The creator is trying to condense real life events I to 90 minutes.
tivert 8y ago
> What specifically disqualifies something from being a “documentary”? Not the OP, but it seems like the same type of thing that disqualifies an article from being a news report (and places it in the category of persuasive opinion piece).
- warp_factor 8y ago
  Thanks for putting it in a single sentence! I would say that + focus on emotions vs facts.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Documentary is not news reporting done in movie form. It's not supposed to be some "objective" filming of a real situation or a retelling of a story either. Some documentaries strive to that, others are whimsical, personal, subjective, surreal, and so on. Some include fiction, others create the situations they cover (and not just report on them). Modern documentary creators and festivals have embraced all kinds of narrative styles, from verite to mocumentary, and from first person narrative to surreal story fragments. Documentary is more of an umbrella category with a very rich variety than a specific "verite" style genre or the typical "WWII/nature" stuff. (I've worked on a few and studied the field)

bluetwo 8y ago

Micheal Moore movies have a built in point-of-view.... his. He doesn't hide this, it is part of the attraction. I guess you could argue it is really commentary more than documentary.

sharkweek 8y ago
It's like the opinion editor versus the daily beat editor. One is writing arguments and defending them, the other is trying to just present the facts of what happened. Both are journalists, just different types.
- bosie 8y ago
  I thought that what you just wrote is literally the definition for journalist vs reporter. if all you do is reporting the facts since you are a daily beat editor, you aren't a journalist?
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    Even reporters through the choice of facts can give a slant. "Man saves kitten from housefire" is different once you throw in "that he lit."
    - bosie 8y ago
      That doesn't change the definitions. Doing a terrible job (by neglecting to mention vital facts) doesn't change what reporting is (and/or should be) and how it differs from journalism.
- UncleMeat 8y ago
  No documentary in history has "just presented the facts of what happened". Footage is edited. Even documentaries that are exclusively interview footage are edited down from huge surpluses of material. When you choose the 1% of material to present, it is not possible to just present facts.

danso 8y ago

Every documentary that's not just raw livestream footage has a narrative. It is inherently inextricable to the work of editing and storytelling.

sp332 8y ago
> predefined narrative Having a narrative is not the same as reworking footage to tell a story you had in mind before doing any actual research.
maxxxxx 8y ago
Nothing can be free of bias but there certainly are different levels.
claudiawerner 8y ago
I'd go further than that and say that even raw livestream footage has a narrative, in the selection of what's being shown, the camera angle, even the title and everything else.
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  The media should cover White House press briefings with their cameras tilted in a Dutch angle, like Batman used whenever they're in the evil villain's lair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_angle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_angle Dutch angles were used extensively in the satirical 1960s Batman TV series (and its 1966 film spin-off) in which each villain had his or her own angle, as they were "crooked".
MattyRad 8y ago
Since you bring up raw livestream footage, a quality example of a documentary which is just livestream footage is Jesus Camp. It's quite fascinating because the people who were filmed believe they are accurately represented (which they explicitly say in follow up interviews). But usually people that watch the film are horrified of the interviewees dogma. It's an interesting example of genuinely truthful documentarionism.

crysin 8y ago

What type of documentary doesn't have a narrative?

pessimizer 8y ago
People are still fooled by cinema verité and think documentaries (and news) somehow pop into existence by themselves, rather than through people laboring over transcripts of interview dialog and arranging them into a narrative order - and then seeking out further interviews and footage in order to fill the holes in that narrative. So the type of documentary that doesn't have a narrative is the type of documentary that simply reflects the truth (as I see it.)
- jandrese 8y ago
  But even then the documentarian has to decide what to include and what not to include. Obviously you can't have for example a Civil War documentary that is the raw truth of each person involved told in realtime. It would be 11 billion years long. I don't see how any documentary can match your standard.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  > So the type of documentary that doesn't have a narrative is the type of documentary that simply reflects the truth (as I see it.) What you're asking for is an omniscient live-stream of events. Any even where someone felt it was worth making a documentary about will be one where there's a narrative. Can you provide an example of a narrative free documentary?
maxxxxx 8y ago
When I watch PBS Frontline I definitely feel I get more information. Obviously there is opinion too but I find it much better researched and thought out.
Zimahl 8y ago
'Jesus Camp' doesn't have any narration, it only shows a glimpse of the religious kids camps. It's completely left up to the viewer to think the the camps are crazy or awesome. It's brilliantly done. I don't remember if there was narration or not, but 'Word Wars', about competitive Scrabble, doesn't take a side (there's no side to take, really). It simply shows the competitors and the kind of zany world they live in.

ultrasaurus 8y ago

"They Shall Not Grow Old" is probably the closest popular documentary I can think of to your ideal (that focuses on humans at least) -- and it still implicitly needs to weigh in on some narratives, for instance the evolving thinking on "did the generals undervalue their soldiers' lives or were they learning as fast as they could?". If you really care about what happened at X, you have to read/watch/listen to multiple sources and synthesize. No one will do that for you without injecting their own conclusion. fwiw, watching 2 documentaries and reading a HN thread is already more research than I ever expected to do on a failed festival.

trentlott 8y ago
Not the derail the topic too much, but was that film great? It looked like an incredible piece of work and a beautiful use of technology.

baby 8y ago

I've never seen a Michael Moore movie toted as a documentary, supersize me either. So I'm not sure where that comes from. Although I would argue that Michael Moore movies are indeed great documentary on some aspect of American culture for a foreigner point of view. The Fyre festival one looks much more like a documentary, perhaps with an agenda but it looks like it is re-tracing the steps while showing a shit ton of footage. So I'm still on the fence.

Jare 8y ago
He won the 2003 Oscar for Best Documentary with Bowling for Columbine, and was nominated for that same category in 2008 for Sicko.
- baby 8y ago
  Oh yeah, Bowling for Columbine was definitely a documentary. I think it depends on the movie.
xirdstl 8y ago
That seems odd. They're usually classified in the 'Documentary' genre (Amazon Prime Video, IMDB, etc). The "Super Size Me" WikiPedia even begins "Super Size Me is a 2004 American documentary film". The entries for Moore's films in Wikipedia begin similarly.
coldtea 8y ago
>I've never seen a Michael Moore movie toted as a documentary, supersize me either. So I'm not sure where that comes from. All Michael Moore movies and Supersize Me are considered documentaries, categorized as such, labeled as such in screenings, participate in the documentary festival circuit, and so on. Moore even won an Oscar for "Documentary Feature". His wikipedia page reads "Michael Francis Moore is an American documentary filmmaker". "Supersize Me" genre in IMBD is "Documentary". It was also a nominee for "Best Documentary" in the Oscars. Netflix marks it a documentary. So, "if you're not sure where this [calling Moore's movies and Supersize Me documentaries] comes from", I can't even begin to understand where this doubt comes from. It's like a question from a parallel universe where those are not casually considered documentaries...

paulcole 8y ago

Can you list a few documentaries that are, according to your definition, actually documentaries? Edit: Why would anyone downvote this?

Reelin 8y ago
How It's Made, Nova, and Nature. To a (slightly) lesser extent, 60 Minutes and Frontline. The term documentary covers (imho) a continuum, from academic style nonfiction on one end to a gray area between infotainment and fiction on the other.

maxxxxx 8y ago

totally agree. There are way too many "documentaries" that are well produced and entertaining but are in essence propaganda pieces for a preconceived viewpoint. I much prefer "boring" pieces that actually try to document things without much spin.

asdff 8y ago

Everything presented in 1-2 hours will be selective in what it shows and what it leaves out. Documentaries are really just primers on a topic; it is up to you to further the information you've just received into a meaningful perspective. That being said, there is a stark contrast between the "How its made/Modern Marvels" type of documentary and the "Ancient Aliens" type of documentary.