Subjective vs Objective

I believe that a documentary could be shown from both sides. It’s very informative to know both sides of the argument. I sincerely believe that both sides should be looked at in some way or another. However like writing a paper, the idea is to present an argument. This does not mean the filmmaker should lie, manipulate, or BS the truth. It should be shown as honest as possible while presenting the filmmaker’s version of the truth. That way the documentary isn’t only informative, but it serves a purpose. It also makes it more compelling.

If we were going to do a documentary about bears then it would be boring if it was just like “Here are bears!!”? Instead you want to show what the bears do. The bears have to have reason and purpose. It can be done like a story or informative, but it needs to be compelling. It may seem like a documentary shouldn’t cater to an audience, but if it doesn’t you run the risk of there being no audience. Then what would be the point of shooting the documentary?

So therefore a truthful subjective documentary that touches on the other side would be ideal. If you have an audience in mind you can cater to them, but be honest and don’t patronize them. Take the audience on a trip into your mind and how you feel about a subject, but be sure to do it in a way that respects the other side and their beliefs.

Matuszewski

I think the thing to remember when reading the article by Matuszewski, is that it was written when film was fairly new. He was only focusing on showing unfiltered reality like the trains and workers movies. He had no idea that eventually people would edit and manipulate video to show a point of view or debunk another. I do believe that video and film can show the truth. We see it all the time when someone with a camera phone records rally, or an incident of police brutality. However, we see different news stations with different takes on each incident. For one person, truth can be different from another person.

Take for example the Occupy Wall Street movement. When it was going on you had two takes on it. For one side they were revolutionary. They were seen as fighting for their freedom. The other side saw them as misinformed and misguided. So when there was video of a cop spraying mace in their face it went one of two ways. The protesters were being uncooperative and had to be maced for the sake of peace. Others had a different take. Students exercising their right to protest were wrongfully maced by the police in an act of police brutality. Both are based on the same video which shows the same thing. Therefore the “truth” is not determined by the video, it is determined by the viewer.