2006-10-30 08:34:36 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
No. Probably most 'poloitical' documentaries highlight one side or the other, although many might give the opponents a chance to put their case. The film maker has control of the editing so can slant the arguement in his/her preferred way.
Think about Bowling for Columbo, Supersize Me, the Al Gore one about climate change. Even the Ken Burns ones like Jazz and the Civil War come from the makers perspective.
On the other hand, wildlife and ethnographic documentaries may not have a side to put. Examples would be the Attenborough docos for the BBC.
2006-10-30 08:47:59 · answer #1 · answered by Jim T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When I think of a documentary, it presents the facts and events generally in the order of occurrence. It doesn't take sides, it tries to present the event or person as it happened or as they were/are. If it is a subject which there are sides, yes, I would say it would need to present both as they would be both part of what happened.
Movies masquerading as documentaries (like those of Michael Moore) are no more than propaganda. They try to convince you to think in the same way as the maker of the film. That is not a documentary.
2006-10-30 16:43:22 · answer #2 · answered by Barry 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not to be considered a documentary- but if you want it to be a good documentary, you should get both sides in somehow- doesn't have to be totally 50/50, but you should give the other sides p.o.v. to keep it balanced
2006-10-30 20:22:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
One would think, but look at Farenheit 911, and a lot of that was fiction...
2006-10-30 16:38:47 · answer #4 · answered by Scotty 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2006-10-30 17:01:45 · answer #5 · answered by renclrk 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋