3 ms·
No, I confuse nothing, you have Hollywood-induced brain rot :) The purpose of a movie is not to entertain. Or rather, that is one possible and valid and fine p
by wly_cdgr 3y ago
No, I confuse nothing, you have Hollywood-induced brain rot :)
The purpose of a movie is not to entertain. Or rather, that is one possible and valid and fine purpose, but it is certainly not the only such purpose. To believe that it is, THAT is the real confusion.
The difference between a documentary and a movie isn't about purpose, it's about method: how they try to get at the truth. The documentary tries to do it by looking at a specific case; the movie (and fiction in general) tries to get at truth via an imagined aggregate (although of course usually embodied in a single fictional character, like Rocky).
- nottorp 3y agoNeither the documentary nor the movie care about the truth. The movie doesn't have to. The documentary cares about engagement.
- sebastiennight 3y agoThe first line of your comment doesn't seem necessary to make your point. There is a guideline that says "don't be snarky"[0] and I think it applies here. Having produced a documentary (and being in the process of creating another one), I can't say that I agree with your view on purpose at all. The purpose of either documentary or fiction movie is whatever the movie maker aims at. There is no reason for anyone to abide by your standard of "trying to get at the truth" when writing the scenario for Once Upon A Time in America, Jurassic Park, The Simpsons (the movie), or Bowling for Columbine. I'd say most movies have an intent behind them. Further than that, we're art amateurs trying to interpret the meaning of abstract paintings in a gallery. Maybe the painter wanted to denunce the patriarchy. Or maybe they had food poisoning that day. Who knows. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html