What I personally feel after evaluating many of the criteria described by Juel is that documentaries really have to strike a balance between pure realism on one end and specific aesthetic goals of the producer/director on the other end. Like Juel himself mentioned, surveillance videos are depictions of the real world and real people without acting to a specific script, yet this could hardly be called a documentary. Even a reality T.V. show could not be called a documentary and there is still some purpose behind them, if only entertainment. I feel while documentaries have to be engaging and entertaining enough to keep an audience, their ultimate purpose of highlighting or showcasing reality trumps entertainment. On the other hand, a film like "Pirates of the Caribbean" is a fictional story whose purpose is to entertain even if it draws inspiration from historical fact.
In the end, it's not even style that counts so much as the purpose and premise. There are fictional films for entertainment filmed in documentary style i.e. the YouTube horror series "Marble Hornets," "The Blair Witch Project," and even the 1970's version of "The Last House on the Left." To me, a documentary seems to be a balance between reality and aesthetics, with a specific goal in mind, but also based on very current and relevant premises.
No comments:
Post a Comment