A proposed documentary dogma, what do people think?
OutOfBreath
Posts: 1,804
I refer to a dogma proposed by Danish film-maker Lars Von Trier (famous in Europe at least) some time ago. The dogma goes as follows:
When making a critical documentary, one should set aside 15 minutes at the end of the film where the accused party get a chance to defend him/herself.
That way, accusations can be met by the people that are targetted, and thus contribute to a more balanced report.
What do you people think? I think it's a great idea myself.
Peace
Dan
When making a critical documentary, one should set aside 15 minutes at the end of the film where the accused party get a chance to defend him/herself.
That way, accusations can be met by the people that are targetted, and thus contribute to a more balanced report.
What do you people think? I think it's a great idea myself.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
but...historical documentaries won't be able to achieve that some time I guess;)
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
But I think instead of the accused, one could replace him with a proponent for another theory. The whole point is about more balance, after all, to countermand certain kinds of crusading journalism where the accused party is never heard from.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965