|
> One contributor cites (and "agrees" with) an
> "esteemed" writing coach in offering that "The
> Truth" would be difficult to "evoke" without
> "fictionalizing scenarios." "Fictional
> liberties" are, I read, necessitated if
> "listeners" and "audience" responsiveness is to
> be sustained. I suggest that if Mr. King was
> susceptible to these temptations he would not
> speak so clearly to the contrary- and he would
> not be working in documentary film.
Right. Documentary film. I'm sorry, I was at first talking about documentary, then dramatized history, then documentary again, so I'll sort the comments out.
<O> Documentary "truth" is important (ie. historical accuracy) but the story's not worth telling if it doesn't contain a capital "Truth." We can get a chronology of events and stats out of a book; film is visual and primarily entertainment over info/educational.
<0> Documentary must follow the same Rules of Story as fiction, especially if it's looking for a prime time or theatrical audience. It is the master documentarist who can draw a balanced and compelling story from historical evidence without resorting to contriving a commercial-break-cliffhanger.
<0> The reccomendation to "fictionalize scenarios" was to TV/film makers adapting a historical story, definitely NOT advice to documentarists (see _The Kid Who Couldn't Miss_, National Film Board Of Canada, to see a real botched job).
<O> A documentary is not a document. It is a form of art, in which history (or current reality) is explored visually. Film being a painfully expensive medium of expression, investors are required to fund the production, investors who want a return on their investment. Therefore, a documentary cannot narrowcast to the hardcore historian. If a documentarist wants to make another documentary, the first had better put butts in seats. If teenagers are sitting next to professors in the audience and they all walk out satisfied, you got a hit.
I remain,
RayK
|