On 8/30/06, David Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why not both? Narrative can be very effective means of communicating complex information to a lay audience, and film, as a linear medium, tends to lend itself to narrative forms of _expression_. I'm not saying that this is the *only* way of making a documentary, but in this case I feel that a narrative structure might have lended a little more coherence to the film, and supported the dialectic between the two opposing POVs expressed therein. At the moment, to be honest, it seems like a series of vignettes united only by a common subject, and as such, in my view, does not constitute a coherent overall work.
Obvious editorialisation is still editorialisation.
Cheers!
Tim
But isn't narrative the proper device of story-telling rather than
the presenting of information to an audience?
Why not both? Narrative can be very effective means of communicating complex information to a lay audience, and film, as a linear medium, tends to lend itself to narrative forms of _expression_. I'm not saying that this is the *only* way of making a documentary, but in this case I feel that a narrative structure might have lended a little more coherence to the film, and supported the dialectic between the two opposing POVs expressed therein. At the moment, to be honest, it seems like a series of vignettes united only by a common subject, and as such, in my view, does not constitute a coherent overall work.
But that is why the obviousness of the cuts was left in.
Obvious editorialisation is still editorialisation.
Cheers!
Tim
_______________________________________________ fc-uk-discuss mailing list fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
