3 ms·

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)

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)