Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
Perhaps you overlooked the criteria in your own post that a documentary is supposed to be non fiction.
How the hell did you come to that idea now?
(Again) To clarify: I only go now and then in a movie. I watch now and then a film on tv.
Sometimes that's a documentary.
I'm totally uninterested in the Oscar award.
(Even now I only looked up from where the ancestory of the German director got their earl's title.)
I have no idea at all who judges the films and how they do it.
I only posted that link plus copied a bit from it.
I read it.
My point has been that, according to critics that I trust and admire, Gore's film is mostly fabrication and/or misrepresentatiion and is more fiction than fact. So you then posted your post in what appeared to be a rebuttal. If that was not your intention, I apologize.
And no, the rules have not changed.
The Academy has become so excessively political and entrenched in one ideology that it rewards those who shares its ideology and punishes anything that does not. By its own rules, a documentary is defined as a non fictional theatrical presentation. Therefore, even when a documentary is exposed as misrepresenting, distorting, or fabricating the actual facts to the point that it should be in the dramatization based on (something) category or fiction, they will reward it if it is politically correct and presents the correct ideology. Thus an irresponsible Michael Moore and/or Al Gore are rewarded while something more factual won't even be nominated.
And then they hyporitically protest a film that is billed as fiction but which presents one of their darlings in an unflatteirng manner. They have even gone so far as to demand that such works be edited to be more factual (from their point of view.)
For Al Gore's documentary to have received the Oscar does nothing but increase contempt for the GW point of view and I think actually is a negative factor in bringing us all closer to agreement on what, if anything, should be done about it.
