3 ms·

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

by danso 8y ago

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.
- rjf72 8y ago
  This seems like a really great litmus test. Documentaries usually tell a story of some event. If people that were on either 'side' of that event are relatively content with their representation then it's going to be a solid documentary. Feels like in some ways that documentaries are increasingly reflective of the division in society. There are documentaries on topics I agree with that I find absurd simply because they misrepresent the 'opposing' side to be a mixture of radicals, idiots, and the misinformed. The notion of mutually respected disagreement seems to be increasingly absent in society. Though even in things like Jesus Camp it falls into another fallacy. One group of outliers is implicitly taken to be representative of a larger group of individuals. My 'Jesus Camp' mostly involved messing with people while they were sleeping - dipping their hands in warm water, shaving cream on the hand then feather on the nose, etc. There were some sermons at the 'Tabernacle' and confession type stuff, but I have nothing but positive memories of it - even though I'm far from religious now a days.
  - boomlinde 8y ago
    > If people that were on either 'side' of that event are relatively content with their representation then it's going to be a solid documentary. I don't believe that there are many people that would make particularly good judges of accuracy in their representation, and there are many divisive issues that just naturally make one side come out worse when the arguments are organized and laid out side by side. Instead, I find the opposite problem concerning: when flawed and obviously fallacious arguments are sugar coated and presented as legitimate alternatives to arguments that make sense, or when facts and falsehoods are presented as though they are both a matter of opinion and debate. This may be done in an attempt to appease to either side of an issue but IMO only serves to further the division. When I'm pro-skub and you're anti-skub, and skub has been proven to be harmful and the supposed benefits of skub have been proven to be hogwash, telling us that the facts are a matter of perspective and that both our opinions are valid is only going to further any division there might be between us. On your end because you understand it as a fact and not as an opinion, and on my end because now I simply think it's a matter of opinion and that my opinion is at least as valid as yours. > Though even in things like Jesus Camp it falls into another fallacy. One group of outliers is implicitly taken to be representative of a larger group of individuals. IMO the film was very clear about what it intended to depict. It focuses on a specific summer camp during one summer, events surrounding it and even more specifically on a few kids involved in it. That you take it to be representative of a larger group of individuals than those depicted in the film is not something I would blame the filmmakers for, but on the other hand perhaps a mistake that a lot of people would make easily.

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

by 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.

rjf72 8y ago
This seems like a really great litmus test. Documentaries usually tell a story of some event. If people that were on either 'side' of that event are relatively content with their representation then it's going to be a solid documentary. Feels like in some ways that documentaries are increasingly reflective of the division in society. There are documentaries on topics I agree with that I find absurd simply because they misrepresent the 'opposing' side to be a mixture of radicals, idiots, and the misinformed. The notion of mutually respected disagreement seems to be increasingly absent in society. Though even in things like Jesus Camp it falls into another fallacy. One group of outliers is implicitly taken to be representative of a larger group of individuals. My 'Jesus Camp' mostly involved messing with people while they were sleeping - dipping their hands in warm water, shaving cream on the hand then feather on the nose, etc. There were some sermons at the 'Tabernacle' and confession type stuff, but I have nothing but positive memories of it - even though I'm far from religious now a days.
- boomlinde 8y ago
  > If people that were on either 'side' of that event are relatively content with their representation then it's going to be a solid documentary. I don't believe that there are many people that would make particularly good judges of accuracy in their representation, and there are many divisive issues that just naturally make one side come out worse when the arguments are organized and laid out side by side. Instead, I find the opposite problem concerning: when flawed and obviously fallacious arguments are sugar coated and presented as legitimate alternatives to arguments that make sense, or when facts and falsehoods are presented as though they are both a matter of opinion and debate. This may be done in an attempt to appease to either side of an issue but IMO only serves to further the division. When I'm pro-skub and you're anti-skub, and skub has been proven to be harmful and the supposed benefits of skub have been proven to be hogwash, telling us that the facts are a matter of perspective and that both our opinions are valid is only going to further any division there might be between us. On your end because you understand it as a fact and not as an opinion, and on my end because now I simply think it's a matter of opinion and that my opinion is at least as valid as yours. > Though even in things like Jesus Camp it falls into another fallacy. One group of outliers is implicitly taken to be representative of a larger group of individuals. IMO the film was very clear about what it intended to depict. It focuses on a specific summer camp during one summer, events surrounding it and even more specifically on a few kids involved in it. That you take it to be representative of a larger group of individuals than those depicted in the film is not something I would blame the filmmakers for, but on the other hand perhaps a mistake that a lot of people would make easily.