After reading Defining Documentary Film, by Henrik Juel, I quickly realized just how controversial and inadequate the actual definition for a "Documentary" really was. I suppose my definition prior to this article would be very similar to the students of Juel's class. I would include that it must be something real, or persuading you to believe to be real. It may also be something that is even debated amongst people such as a documentary like Supersize Me. Yes Morgan can give facts regarding his decrease in health, but it still leaves questions unanswered. One example of these questions including, "how bad will McDonalds affect me if I only eat it once a week?" In other words, Documentaries today do not need to be 100 percent factual. It would be very difficult to know if every little detail and stated "fact" in a documentary was indeed a fact. I am sure there are many so called "documentaries" that are not composed of solely true facts, but we still consider them to be.
Although a clear definition of a documentary has not yet been defined in this article, Juel's list for the criterion a documentary should include seems extremely accurate. As I read through the list, specific examples of documentaries I have seen over the years have come to mind in ways that coincide with Juel's criterion. I do not believe this list was made to limit, nor was it made to include every criterion mentioned in order for a film to be called a documentary. For example, a documentary such as Planet Earth clearly differs from a documentary such as Supersize Me, but nonetheless, they are still documentaries.
No comments:
Post a Comment