upvote

points

by tonymet3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby madeofpalk3 hours ago|
next
[-]
? That’s the point of film - to compel a perspective.
reply
upvoteby tonymet2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I agree, though documentaries are presented as objective / fact finding films. And most viewers seem to share that belief.

Even the trailer for this film implies "look at how cooky / manipulative this woman is -- we're just showing her staring at Nathan"

reply
upvoteby abletonlive1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> and most viewers seem to share that belief

Well that explains a lot about the doomerism and misinformation we regularly find on HN. If you don’t see the agenda being pushed or look into who is funding the documentary for just about every documentary in existence then you’re just not very intellectually honest. For example one of the vegan pushing ones on Netflix is straight up funded by/closely tied to for-profit artificial meat companies

reply
upvoteby YeGoblynQueenne1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Which one? Whichever it is, it would hardly be sponsored by the meat industry innit.
reply
upvoteby gopher_space2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Actually came here to "attack" that point. It's a view of reality that requires a conceptual bias-free media as reference for any commentary, and bias-free media is a tautology.

Compelling a perspective is the only thing cinematography / photography is doing. Bias equals point of view. There can't be any unbiased point of view because they're the same thing.

There's a conversation on education to be had here.

reply
upvoteby tonymet2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You're right but the distributors and creators pretend that documentaries are objective fact-finding media. and so does the audience.

Look at Super Size Me . The trailers, news media, promotions, critics, broader news media presented it as an objective case study. And McDonalds canceled a popular sales promotion over it. *and it had an enormous negative influence on McDonald's reputation, that it still hasn't yet recovered from.

90+% of people watch and share documentaries with the perspective that they are objective, truth seeking works.

reply
upvoteby ButlerianJihad2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You know, I was invited to go watch Super Size Me in the theater with a Catholic youth group, and I more or less believed every claim and depiction that was shown on-screen at the time. After all, this guy was consulting with actual, reputable physicians about his condition. And everyone knows that McDonald's food is horrible stuff to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me#Counter-claims

But I was unsurprised, years and years later, to discover that Spurlock's extensive and growing liver damage, and other adverse symptoms, were being helped along quite a bit by his severe alcohol abuse throughout principal photography. It really sort of drove home that there is more than one side to this story they put up on screen, no matter how much they appear to seek and depict the truth.

reply
upvoteby tonymet1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Occam's Razor of Hollywood. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. He was just a boozer.

Thousands of through-hikers live on McDonalds and Ramen for months and are some of the fittest people. Dozens of other activities like this too.

reply
upvoteby tonymet2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
If A24 / Nathan Fielder promoted this "documentary" like Ali-G / Sasha Baron Kohen's works, they would be honest about it.

Kohen lampoons subjects in candid videos but at least presents his works as a joke, and we're all in on it.

This movie is the exact same thing, but it's promoted as an inside & sincere look at Holmes, when it's really just the Ali G schtick.

reply