|
June 20th, 2004, 07:06 PM | #1 | |
Hullaboarder
|
Definition of a Documentary
I saw this posted in the Hulla Documentary Thread and then started to wonder...
Quote:
From www.dictionary.com. . . documentary -Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film Purposely leaving out a major fact while making a documentary wouldnt make for much of a truthful documentary. It make's sense that showing such footage would only bring the scene down more. However, is it possible that not including it will only make things worse down the road? A non-raver watches the video, notices the lack of drug use, goes to Hulla expecting a drug-free environment, then discovers the truth. This then adds more controversey to the scene in the form of covering-up a major fact in a documentary which is supposed to be all about the scene. Ofcourse, the documentary is on the focus of the music, DJ's, what it takes etc etc and not the drugs. Therefor drugs are irrelevent and dont have to be included. Is this mind-set enough to justify leaving out a major fact of raves? Do you think that not including these activities would question the definition of a "documentary"? Should this fact be included? Why or why not? Discuss.
__________________
Cause when it comes to this gangsta shit you muthafuckas know who run it Last edited by Sim : June 20th, 2004 at 07:10 PM. |
|
June 20th, 2004, 07:51 PM | #2 |
Hullaboarder
|
Obviously he is not stupid enough to agree to footages of kidz in a K hole or all etarded.... But what there probably will be is footages of kids giving each other messages,etc,all perhaps signs of kids being on E, and maybe even a sidenote on the effects of E....
I dont think its in the interest of Frolic to have the truth about raves come out of with this doucumentary, nothing raw and real... |
June 20th, 2004, 08:02 PM | #3 |
Hullaboarder
|
Ofcourse it isn't the interest of Frolic to include illegal substances in this documentary. This is why I am questioning this "documentary". Is it right to call edited footage of a rave, a documentary?
|
June 20th, 2004, 10:40 PM | #4 |
Hullaboarder
|
This documentary will have more of an overlap with other forms of television, ie reality television.... Im sure this is Frolics intent....
So, yeah, you cant really called a documentary.... Id really like Frolics take anyhow... |
June 20th, 2004, 11:09 PM | #5 |
Hullaboarder
|
the point is to show people that cant be at hulla to see/ watch a hulla (or the behind the scenes) to get a bit of an idea how wicked hullabaloo actually is
__________________
-----{}- They call me, Ri.N.P -{}----- |
June 20th, 2004, 11:21 PM | #6 | |
Hullaboarder
|
Quote:
Yeah, but the real question will any of the sketchy side of hulla be showcased if it is cough on camera |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|