Talk:Documentary film

message: The eras don't work out as neatly as they're intended to: Flaherty started out in silent film and continued well after the development of sound; the same overlap will occur between any "eras" constructed here.  Where would Riefenstahl fit?  She was still filming in her 70s, and may be filming still, at 99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 February 2002 (UTC)
replies: text: You, anonymous writer, are exactly correct.  :-)  The eras don't work out; historical eras never do.  The 70s started well before the 70s and ended well before the 80s; the U.S. Civil Rights movement started well before the bus boycott; the first assassinated civil rights leader in the U.S. was Harry T. Moore.  Anyway.  long & short of it, it's just a convenience.  Unfortunately, it's not one commonly adopted by documentary textbooks, so feel free to do away with it.  A better move would be to divide docs into commonly accepted movements, e.g. "continental tradition," "newsreels," "cinema verite," "propaganda films," and maybe "experimental docs" (Rain, Koyaanisqatsi) (which I guess would accept also  Atomic Cafe and The Last Cigarette? Or put those under "compilation films" maybe?).  And yes, Riefenstahl is still filming.  She's 100 this year, and releasing a film she compiled from her footage scuba diving.  <g>  --Koyaanis Qatsi — Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 31 March 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Eras

message: I put the whole text about history in its own "History"-section. This gave the consequence that the introduction-text is very smal and maybe it would need to be developed a little. David Björklund — Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 17 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: I included the info about the making-of documentary. It has to be revised and expanded. --Eleassar777 09:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Info about making-of documentary

message: There is some confusion in this section. Works by Kopple and Pennebaker are described as cinema verite, but Kopple and Pennebaker are grouped together (properly, at least in Pennebaker's case -- I can't speak to Kopple) with the direct cinema directors.--Adoorajar 18:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cinema verite vs. direct cinema 

message: It is clear that there is a distinction between filmmakers who 'observe' and those who 'politicize', in the wide sense.  This is a philosophical/ethical debate, and an important one.  Would this be the place to discuss the debate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.227.213 (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinction between "observe" and "politicize"

message: I tagged this article for clean-up for two main reasons:
#Much redudancy. People like Vertov are mentioned in several contexts, sometimes in a repetitious manner. The entire article needs to be rewritten to make it consistent and succinct.
#Guidelines need to be established for the external links. They're all over the place now.
--Jeremy Butler 19:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged for clean-up 

message: The movie poster with the burning flag is a fake. It was made and published online by someone not connectied to the production and copied to several blogs within a few days around the premier of the movie. Several right wing bloggers were very offended by the poster and saw it as another proof of their view of Moore (and hurried up posting the poster), while some left wing blogs posted and praised the poster, as they didn't realise it was fake. If you take a closer look at an enlargement of the poster, you will see the bad Photoshopping that has been done with the poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.229.180 (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up 82.143.229.180.  It's been there so long, it's funny that no one noticed the "Time Out Dubai" tag on the bottom :-0 .  I replaced the fake with the official release poster, which had already been posted for use on the Fahrenheit 9/11 wiki entry.Pixel23 03:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie poster with burning flag fake 

message: I find the distinction between cinema verité and direct cinema to be a bit esoterical. Especially when the general level of complexity that such a short article can attain is kept in mind.
The history of documentary, and its present, is about how filmakers tried to be, either, more truthfull, ethical, or powerfull, with their artform. My view is that its the history of their strategies, and of their objectives (which cannot be separated from war, then post war criticism, then civic and nationalists mouvements of 60's and 70's, or recently, political correctness and auto-fiction) this is  what we should tell.
*Because if documentary is not truth, its history IS about the relationship of cinema to truth and reality, political, social history.  
In parrallel to this evolution of ideas and ideals in various societies, (Russia, Canada, France, US...) there is also the evolution of the techniques of filmaking, of its machinery. The impact of the Nagra, for example, cannot be forgotten.
Could this be a skeleton?
*1 The reality Shock
Travelogue and colonial cinema
How cinema was at first  seen AS reality
How this spectacle of life evolved in proto documentary travelogues. 
*2 Futurism and Kino Pravda
The machine myth and artists
How cinema is the objective modern medium 'par excellence'  : objective.
*3 War and mise en scene
Nations using the tool
Journalism, propaganda, counter propaganda and skepticism. 
In studio documentary. 
The contradictions of documentary.
*4 Recomposing reality
Decolonialist movement, civic rights, candid camera, anthropological cinema, feminist cinema.
Trying to say the truth, and questionning the way films are made.
*5 Reality after modernity
Public relations, spins / polemic documentary cinema, reality shows and mockumentary.
How the reality effect of documentary style stuff blurs the line separating fact and fiction  in our information era. 
Does that make sense to anyone?
66.130.205.229 19:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An historical form   - Structure proposal 

message: QUOTE: Cinema verite borrows from both Italian neorealism's penchant for shooting non-actors on location, and the French New Wave's use of largely unscripted action and improvised dialogue; the filmmakers took advantage of advances in technology allowing smaller, handheld cameras and synchronized sound to film events on location as they unfold.
This does not make sense.  Cinema direct exists in the SAME TIME as the French new wave.  They can be seen has a similar mouvement towards lighter production constraints, both in documentary AND fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.205.229 (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: French new wave??

message: I've long been somewhat irritated by the last third of this article - because it's an endless list of lists...I'm not sure how to best deal with the issue, but the article has been tagged for cleanup, and I think we should discuss how best to proceed. Thoughts? --Nhansen 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions on "list" cleanup? 

message: I apologize in advance as I am new to this, so I probably placed this in the wrong spot.  Nonetheless, I had an issue with a statement made at the end of the article and, as I'm a newbie, I decided not to edit it but rather bring it up on the discussion page first.
"Documentary Films are protected works of journalism protected under the first amendment."
- That is a very, very debatable statement.  If I work for NBC news, according to legal precedent, I can film anyone at anytime.  That luxury is absolutely not granted to documentary films.  Docs have to get clearances just like any narrative film or risk a lawsuit.  Many documentaries do take that risk and take out an insurance policy to protect themselves, but I think that sentence is highly misleading.  Documentary films are considered for profit entertainment and are not legally considered journalism according to U.S. law.  Am I off base? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.226.30 (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected works of journalism?

message: Cinema Veritié, French New Wave used hand held cameras? Not really! Smaller, but this might be a bit misleading. (86.139.111.40 (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: French New Wave cameras/

message: Anybody know something about "The Four Modes of Documentary Filmmaking"? Supposed to be something like 1) The Expositional, 2) The Observational, 3) The Interactive and 4) The Reflective or Reflexive. It probably deserves a mention in the article, if it's valid as a way of describing documentary films. --84.38.158.196 (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Four Modes 

message: The National Film Board of Canada has a new web site offering free online streaming of hundreds of new and classic documentaries. I propose to add it to External links and am raising it here first, per instructions in the warning tag in the article. The NFB was founded by documentary pioneer John Grierson and is a world leader in non-fiction film production. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I see that someone has proposed NFB links before. (How did this Talk page get so jumbled up?) Anyway, this proposal is for the NFB's new "Beta" viewers with many more online documentaries than before. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Add National Film Board of Canada to External links

message: The image :File:Britey for the record poster.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Britey for the record poster.PNG

message: What is the relevance of this entire section? I propose deleting it immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozymandias1818 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errol Morris? 

message: SnagFilms.com is an online library of over 1,000 documentaries that are all free to watch and share. I would like to add it to External links and am raising the issue here first, per instructions in the warning tag in the article.  I feel that this library of documentaries is a valuable resource and fits well with this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.211.141 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. 75.48.4.160 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Add SnagFilms to External links?

message: Chronicle of a Summer (Jean Rouch) and Golden Gloves (Gilles Groulx)NFB.ca, Golden Gloves - ONF - CollectionNFB.ca
The above section references the film board of Canada to support the notion that Groulx and Brault are pioneers of Direct Cinema.  The source quite clearly states that their work is "...considered a precursor to the birth of direct cinema."  Being a precursor to the birth of a movement and being part of a movement are two different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.60.215 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Board of Canada Reference improperly cited 

message: John Grierson did not coin the term, "documentary." I added the caveat "according to popular myth." Also, I eliminated some of the links that were dead. As they were of negligible importance this wasn't too painful (generally one hesitates to eliminate even a dead link, but these ones were not very well chosen).  75.48.4.160 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Minor Fixes 

message: Why is "The Power of Nightmares" at the top? It needs to be replaced with the proper "quick info" box like most other articles include.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.63.91 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace "The Power of Nightmares" with proper relevant info. 

message: I believe it should be merged because tv is a type of motion picture and film is a broad term for all motion pictures. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Documentary television]] merged into this article

message: An image used in this article, File:VoicesOfIraq.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:VoicesOfIraq.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:VoicesOfIraq.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I have edited the implication that Vertov described documentary as the "creative treatment of actuality" (not Grierson) out of the sentence "Grierson's views align with Vertov's conterierson's definition of documentary as "creative treatment of actuality" has gained some acceptance, though it presents philosophical questions about documentaries containing stagings and reenactments."  Junius (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining Documentary

message: I've removed the following unsourced passage, added by an anon IP:
*"Docuempathy films is a term created by the Indian documentary filmmaker and children's book writer Simran Kaler. Docuempathy films are films in which the director is the subject of the film. For example, if a director makes a film on labor issues and he has experienced them personally, then he should be able to "empathize" with the problem or issue in the documentary. Simran Kaler has made 34 documentary films; some of his docuempathies are Five Rivers Still Thirsty, Saade Hise Di Zindagi, In Search of Freedom, A Punjab within Punjab, On Rent, Early Hawkers, The Legend of Malerkotla, Punjab vs. Pesticide, and Wrestling in Punjab."
"Docuempathy" does not reveal enough in the way of reliable sources to merit inclusion in this main article. This looks very much like a way to promote Simran Kaler through Wikipedia, rather than document a truly notable subgenre of doc cinema. I would ask that it not be restored unless accompanied by reliable sources, which are not the same as user generated content, Flickr self-portraits, YouTube videos. etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Docuempathy"

message: We've experienced a lot of vandalizism here.  Would it be right to semi-protect it for a while? buffbills (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection 

message: Maybe this is a bit offtopic but I would like to see more documentary films about documentary film making. As documentaries seems to gain more and more popularity it would seem important to stop to think about the meta level and how it's hard to be objective. There's :Category:Documentary films about films and :Category:Works about documentary film but could there be a subcategory Documentary films about documentary film making? I also noticed that films like Michael Moore Hates America and Manufacturing Dissent are not categorised in either of those categories. Should they be, since they include critical look into Moore's methods? In Manufacturing Dissent I liked how they turned the camera on themselves to contemplate wheter they were ethical themselves in the making of the film. These kind of films remind to keep a healthy skeptisism while watching documentaries.--Custoo (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentaries about documentary film making? 

message: This article has a lot of information that works for it. For example, there is a good amount of external links to help you find more reliable information. It also goes into detail on the different aspects of documentary and how it has been affected by different artistic and social eras. While the cited information is good and thorough, the downside is that a lot of the information is not cited, therefore making you wary of its reliability. It could easily be improved if you go back to include citations. An article that would be good for reference could be "Participatory Film-Making For Social Change: Dilemmas In Balancing Participatory And Artistic Qualities" in Journal of Arts and Communities.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.59.213.171 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary Film Evaluation 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion