1.Documentaries document what the documentarian wants to be portrayed. For example, Nanook of the North showed us how the director wanted to show Nanook and his family as “gentle savages” and he did just that by manipulating camera angles. He had an agenda and it was reached through his cinematography and direction.

2. Films generate their own reality by the concealing and manipulation of images revealed. We see different methods of manipulation in the scenes used to capture incredible shots like the one in Man with a Movie Camera. Specifically referring to the scene when it appeared the camera man was in danger of getting hit by a train but in reality it was a manipulation of camera angles.

3.Examples of truth-value in documentaries can be found in the film The Man With a Movie Camera. In this case the viewer watches a movie of a film in production. The viewer can then ponder about what they just saw as well as think about the creative process. The work that goes into a film is deeper than just what the shot looks like but actually the moments that lead up to the acquisition of the coveted scene and its requirements.

4.I don’t suppose there is such a thing as objective documentary. The process of creating a documentary requires one to do their own do their own research and recite the events by themselves as opposed to consuming someone else’s facts and beliefs with an agenda. Personal opinion comes along with flaws such as prejudice and unfairness.

Documentaries actually document when they go directly to the source of an event or statement they’re trying to present. Documentaries tend to tell us a story and then present evidence to confirm that story.

Documentaries are actually document in the sense that they show visual aids in the process of explaining their topic. For example in Zelig there are newspaper clippings police reports and interviews that are shown documenting the events that supposedly took place. Fake or not they are physical documents that can be explained from certain points of view in order to persuade the viewer.

Documentaries are never truly objective since there are limited ways in including everything into a film. Therefore, producers select the perspective they want you to see and continue building scenes that support this perspective. In Triumph of the Will, Riefenstahl glorified Nazi Germany and romanticized the strength of the young aryan race with the happy scenes of ambitious and vibrant young German boys.

1.Documentaries document what the documentarian wants to be portrayed. For example, Nanook of the North showed us how the director wanted to show Nanook and his family as “gentle savages” and he did just that by manipulating camera angles. He had an agenda and it was reached through his cinematography and direction.

Documentaries document some aspects of a whole story. Since most documentaries aren’t full accounts of the said subject their films, they can’t exactly be considered to be completely reliable. So in one aspect documentaries are able to display some truth of their subjects, but are not able to paint the complete pictures of those subjects.

Documentaries bring the audience into new experience based on factual information about events, people, and places. Those elements support that Documentaries are actually document, and factual documents show reality.

they only capture some aspects of the subject. In Nanook of the North, the audience only saw the simple side of the life of the Eskimo’s, because they were “simple” people. Not one time did we see them challenged,a very real aspect of life in any society.

A balance of using factual evidence, through art and entertainment, while providing visuals representing a point of view.

Films create their own reality by submerging the audience in the images and clips shown. We tend to forget we are watching a film and become so enveloped in the subject at hand that the film makers can begin tweaking and editing certain shots to trick the viewers without the viewer even thinking it is possible. We see the behind the scenes methods used to capture certain seemingly impossible shots in Man with a Movie Camera, particularly when it looked like the camera man was going to get hit by the train and then didn’t.

2. Films generate their own reality by the concealing and manipulation of images revealed. We see different methods of manipulation in the scenes used to capture incredible shots like the one in Man with a Movie Camera. Specifically referring to the scene when it appeared the camera man was in danger of getting hit by a train but in reality it was a manipulation of camera angles.

A film’s job is to provide an escape for some period of time in order to engage an audience. Storytelling, music, production, etc. all play a role in allowing the viewer’s mind to forget the reality it lives in and make it pay attention to the reality the film creates.

Filmmaker edits or shoots with factual elements by their own ways, and thus makes it truthful. In this regard, visual aids with different camera angles can be one of important materials to make films’ own reality

because viewers loose consciousness of the possibility of any other type of reality. The suspension of disbelief comes into play here, like in Zelig. While we know it is highly unlikely that someone’s legs will be turned backwards, we don’t call it out or get hung up on it, we accept it and keep watching for the sake of the film.

I’d like to think documentaries are similar to a lawyer presenting their case to a jury. Documentaries tend to present a case and the evidence they collected to prove that case, depending on which side their on.

The truth value of documentaries is dependent on the viewer’s openness and prior knowledge of the subject. For example Nanook of the North is as far as I can think of believable and truthful. Hearing the background of the film maker, with little prior knowledge of Inuit people and their lifestyle it did not seem to me that there would be any reason for the film maker to distort the truth value of what he had to present, allowing me to find everything in the film reasonably truthful.

3.Examples of truth-value in documentaries can be found in the film The Man With a Movie Camera. In this case the viewer watches a movie of a film in production. The viewer can then ponder about what they just saw as well as think about the creative process. The work that goes into a film is deeper than just what the shot looks like but actually the moments that lead up to the acquisition of the coveted scene and its requirements.

Documentaries want to make you feel a certain way about a subject. When there is a purpose of persuasion in your message, the truth the documentaries are claiming to be true is compromised. Therefore, documentaries do hold some truth in what they say, but it can only be considered one side of a subject. It holds some truth, but isn’t the whole truth.

I think the truth-value of documentaries is that documentaries deliver a presentation of factual information to the audience. Also, documentaries should reveal interesting or unusual stories by portraying actual images.

Truth-value of documentaries can best be understood through The Man With a Movie Camera. The audience is able to take a step back from the typical point of view they experience when watching something. In this instance, they get to watch a film of a film being made. This allows the audience member to think about what they are seeing and how it was captured. Making a film is not simply shot out of a car window by capturing everything that passes by, but rather standing on the ledge of a car to get the desired angle. While the film maker is filming real-life footage, he is making his own decisions on how and what to capture.

Documentaries tend to rely on interpretations of real stories by the filmmaker. Through the creators point of view, content tends to be one-sided or even critical of an opposing view, lacking balance to the “truth” trying to be conveyed

Personally I do not believe there can be an objective documentary. In order to learn the facts about a certain topic objectively it is best to do your own research and read up on the events on your own rather than have someone gather what they believe to be important and present them to you with an agenda. Regardless of personal opinion there can be generational or cultural bias that comes into play naturally.

4.I don’t suppose there is such a thing as objective documentary. The process of creating a documentary requires one to do their own do their own research and recite the events by themselves as opposed to consuming someone else’s facts and beliefs with an agenda. Personal opinion comes along with flaws such as prejudice and unfairness.

I don’t think there can be an objective documentary because I think it’s hard for a person to be objective. Directors are trying to make you feel a certain way in order to catch your attention. You’re more likely to watch something that takes a stance than something that doesn’t. Documentaries are films where you are seeing the directors’ points of view. As long as the directors are not objective the films cannot be either.

I think there can be an objective documentary. However, it is difficult to objectively capture the reality on the screen. For example, if there is a specific character involved in the documentary’s story, reaction from the audience can make some biased opinions or conclusions differently.