Documentaries

Notaro

FlakeNoir said:

Notaro said:

FlakeNoir said:

Today I watched: The Mystery of Marilyn Monroe: The Unheard Tapes.

It was quite good, it refreshed a lot of what I had forgotten and some of it was completely new to me.
I guess we'll never really know what happened. She was an enigma and everybody's darling, but so lonely too I think. 

I watched that as well Flakes  it was decent, likewise I had heard most of the theories discussed in it before, I think she became quite difficult to work with as she got more successful, there's an interview with Laurence Olivier where he says that she was very difficult to work with,  constantly late, multiple takes, he felt he couldn't get the performance out of her, it was there but it was just to difficult trying to coax it out from her.

Was this toward the end of her life when she was using prescription drugs more heavily?

The Prince And The Showgirl was 1957 so it was towards the end of her career.  On her last film The Misfits she was apparently extremely difficult, she had her acting coach with her and wouldn't do anything without consulting her first.

GNTLGNT

...a lonely and lost little girl playing dress-up.....

Hedda Gabler

I also watched that. Treated like a piece of meat, all her life. Tragic

Notaro

Watched Jim & Andy; The Great Beyond.

Fascinating documentary about the making of the movie Man On The Moon, it has Jim Carrey reminiscing about his performance as Andy Kaufman. 

Kurben

Notaro said:

FlakeNoir said:

Today I watched: The Mystery of Marilyn Monroe: The Unheard Tapes.

It was quite good, it refreshed a lot of what I had forgotten and some of it was completely new to me.
I guess we'll never really know what happened. She was an enigma and everybody's darling, but so lonely too I think. 

I watched that as well Flakes  it was decent, likewise I had heard most of the theories discussed in it before, I think she became quite difficult to work with as she got more successful, there's an interview with Laurence Olivier where he says that she was very difficult to work with,  constantly late, multiple takes, he felt he couldn't get the performance out of her, it was there but it was just to difficult trying to coax it out from her.

Weeelll, Olivier could be tough to get along with too. I remember in this case that Olivier told Monroe that all she had to do was to be sexy in a patronizing way. She didn't like that. She saw herself as more than a dumb blonde. Then he followed that up with the comment that just do what Vivian Leigh did in the stageplay (which coincidentally he also directed and starred in). Monroe later said that if you don't respect your actors they can't work well. She responded, a bit childish, with being on purpose late. Simply bad chemistry between persons, it happens. It is also said she had a miscarriage during the movies filming. Also drugs. A lot going on at the time.

GNTLGNT

...she became a shrewd businesswoman with an unfortunate child-like soul, and her desire to be loved was her undoing....

Hedda Gabler

Our Father

piece of shit fertility doctor in Indiana used his own sperm to father 94 known children so far without one woman’s consent. 

*%%#^^**%^*%%#**z. 

*+^**^^*^%^^€<|{>’okhh!!!!!!.


*+>~~!!£!€£!.!!!!!!!!!!!!

🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

FlakeNoir

Hedda Gabler said:

Our Father

piece of shit fertility doctor in Indiana used his own sperm to father 94 known children so far without one woman’s consent. 

*%%#^^**%^*%%#**z. 

*+^**^^*^%^^€<|{>’okhh!!!!!!.


*+>~~!!£!€£!.!!!!!!!!!!!!

🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

I've just finished watching this. I don't trust myself to say anything right now. 
So angry...

GNTLGNT

FlakeNoir

Hedda Gabler said:

Our Father

piece of shit fertility doctor in Indiana used his own sperm to father 94 known children so far without one woman’s consent. 

*%%#^^**%^*%%#**z. 

*+^**^^*^%^^€<|{>’okhh!!!!!!.


*+>~~!!£!€£!.!!!!!!!!!!!!

🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

Okay I have to say something about this, I'm no less disgusted or angry though.

This piece of loser MF'ing (quite fkn literally) shit had the temerity to beg one of his biological offspring to shut her mouth because he was afraid it would ruin a 'good marriage of 50+ years'?
No mate... complete bollocks. If you spent 30+ years jacking off in an office room adjacent to multiple unsuspecting women who were lying there, trusting you with their minds, bodies and souls.... and their family's future life together... then you didn't have a good marriage. 
F c u k ! 
Unbelievable.  AND... they found several other doctors who had done the same sort of thing?!

I'll shut up. Way too angry about this.

FlakeNoir

Also... the judge and his attorney during his frigging hearing made me sick. Okay yes, he could only be brought to charge on the lying, I get that. I do get this... I'm just infuriated by the fact that their tone was almost grovelling to him. Like he was being wronged. Yes. Again.... he was only supposed to be tried for the lying and not for the actual atrocious acts he had committed. And yes the victim impact statement was riddled with things outside of the charges brought. 
But I wanted to slap the smarmy grin from his attorney, she made me want to heave.
I hope none of her family members end up being related to this asshole, or maybe if they are she will grow a conscience. 

I'll attempt to shut up again. 

Hedda Gabler

FlakeNoir said:

Hedda Gabler said:

Our Father

piece of shit fertility doctor in Indiana used his own sperm to father 94 known children so far without one woman’s consent. 

*%%#^^**%^*%%#**z. 

*+^**^^*^%^^€<|{>’okhh!!!!!!.


*+>~~!!£!€£!.!!!!!!!!!!!!

🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

Okay I have to say something about this, I'm no less disgusted or angry though.

This piece of loser MF'ing (quite fkn literally) shit had the temerity to beg one of his biological offspring to shut her mouth because he was afraid it would ruin a 'good marriage of 50+ years'?
No mate... complete bollocks. If you spent 30+ years jacking off in an office room adjacent to multiple unsuspecting women who were lying there, trusting you with their minds, bodies and souls.... and their family's future life together... then you didn't have a good marriage. 
F c u k ! 
Unbelievable.  AND... they found several other doctors who had done the same sort of thing?!

I'll shut up. Way too angry about this.

FlakeNoir said:

Also... the judge and his attorney during his frigging hearing made me sick. Okay yes, he could only be brought to charge on the lying, I get that. I do get this... I'm just infuriated by the fact that their tone was almost grovelling to him. Like he was being wronged. Yes. Again.... he was only supposed to be tried for the lying and not for the actual atrocious acts he had committed. And yes the victim impact statement was riddled with things outside of the charges brought. 
But I wanted to slap the smarmy grin from his attorney, she made me want to heave.
I hope none of her family members end up being related to this asshole, or maybe if they are she will grow a conscience. 

I'll attempt to shut up again. 

I’m right there with you. Disgusting , mentally ill trash. The good thing, these stupid horrible people are showing themselves and that’s a good thing.  And because they are so stupid— just flat out dumber than a box of rocks —have faith!  Sit back and let it play out.  

GNTLGNT

Hedda Gabler

GNTLGNT said:

Just stupid people suck. Evil people suck. People pushing crazy shit suck. 

FlakeNoir

Makes my head hurt. Makes my heart hurt more. It's disgusting. 

Hedda Gabler

Like a Rolling Stone: The Life and Times of Ben Fong-Torres.

Hedda Gabler

George Carlin’s American Dream. 

GNTLGNT

Hedda Gabler said:

George Carlin’s American Dream. 

.....*&%$!!*&$%#@!! THAT!.....

Hedda Gabler

Great documentary. Oh how i wish he was here today at the top of his game. 

GNTLGNT

Hedda Gabler said:

Great documentary. Oh how i wish he was here today at the top of his game. 

....he would be all over that like a cheap suit.....

Kurben

We've had a big debate over documentaries here in sweden since it has been revealed that what was said to be a documentary in it were several scenes that were played by actors that had nothing to do with the subject of the movie. That must be condemned in my view. If you insert several pieces of fiction into a documentary then it becomes a fiction. We have, at the moment, a kind of craving for great exciting stories about true events which makes it very tempting for either the writer or director to make it an even better story by adding a little here and there and taking away other bits. And its ok to do that but you can't, just can't, then call it a documentary. Call it a movie based on a true story or something. These movies can be very good but the viewer  then know that there is a certain amount of fiction in it. Some quite a lot and some very little depending of subject but the important thing is that they dont claim to be a dicumentary. Same with so called dramatized documentaries. A documentary needs to be aware of its facts and not try to fool the viewer. It is also a sad fact that when we watch a documentary we tend to trust it because a movie, done well, can be very convincing. So the documentary basically says this is the truth or my truth or somekind of truth. If you add or subtract you're serving, with intent, the viewer a falsehood where they expect a truth. Because that the market for documentaries now are good the temptation is always there to "better" the story to make it sell better. We, as an audience, need to be more aware of this process when watching documentaries i think.

GNTLGNT

Hedda Gabler

Kurben said:

We've had a big debate over documentaries here in sweden since it has been revealed that what was said to be a documentary in it were several scenes that were played by actors that had nothing to do with the subject of the movie. That must be condemned in my view. If you insert several pieces of fiction into a documentary then it becomes a fiction. We have, at the moment, a kind of craving for great exciting stories about true events which makes it very tempting for either the writer or director to make it an even better story by adding a little here and there and taking away other bits. And its ok to do that but you can't, just can't, then call it a documentary. Call it a movie based on a true story or something. These movies can be very good but the viewer  then know that there is a certain amount of fiction in it. Some quite a lot and some very little depending of subject but the important thing is that they dont claim to be a dicumentary. Same with so called dramatized documentaries. A documentary needs to be aware of its facts and not try to fool the viewer. It is also a sad fact that when we watch a documentary we tend to trust it because a movie, done well, can be very convincing. So the documentary basically says this is the truth or my truth or somekind of truth. If you add or subtract you're serving, with intent, the viewer a falsehood where they expect a truth. Because that the market for documentaries now are good the temptation is always there to "better" the story to make it sell better. We, as an audience, need to be more aware of this process when watching documentaries i think.

Can you give some examples of “documentaries” calling themselves that when you think they shouldn’t? 

Hedda Gabler

A Father…A Son… Once Upon A Time in Hollywood. 

Documentary about and starring Kirk and Michael Douglas

Kurben

Hedda Gabler said:

Kurben said:

We've had a big debate over documentaries here in sweden since it has been revealed that what was said to be a documentary in it were several scenes that were played by actors that had nothing to do with the subject of the movie. That must be condemned in my view. If you insert several pieces of fiction into a documentary then it becomes a fiction. We have, at the moment, a kind of craving for great exciting stories about true events which makes it very tempting for either the writer or director to make it an even better story by adding a little here and there and taking away other bits. And its ok to do that but you can't, just can't, then call it a documentary. Call it a movie based on a true story or something. These movies can be very good but the viewer  then know that there is a certain amount of fiction in it. Some quite a lot and some very little depending of subject but the important thing is that they dont claim to be a dicumentary. Same with so called dramatized documentaries. A documentary needs to be aware of its facts and not try to fool the viewer. It is also a sad fact that when we watch a documentary we tend to trust it because a movie, done well, can be very convincing. So the documentary basically says this is the truth or my truth or somekind of truth. If you add or subtract you're serving, with intent, the viewer a falsehood where they expect a truth. Because that the market for documentaries now are good the temptation is always there to "better" the story to make it sell better. We, as an audience, need to be more aware of this process when watching documentaries i think.

Can you give some examples of “documentaries” calling themselves that when you think they shouldn’t? 

Well, the ones that has been open for debate here is an award winning documentary called Sabaya about some men rescuing some yasidic girls from sexslavery in an IS camp. Turns out the rescuing as it happened in the documentary is fake, the girls saved did not want to be saved, they in their opinion, lived with their children and was now separated from them which they did NOT want to. Nothing mentioned about that. One of several things that did not add up including the "heroic" saviors that had other agendas than just saving sexslaves if they were sexslaves.

The other is The Prize Of Silence about the scandal inside the Swedish Nobel Committe that ended with several members forced to leave their seats and one prison sentence for sexual assault. Here it is no added scenes but the interviews that were used has been very imaginitive cut to give a totally different impression of what the ones interviewed actually said. It is always a danger when shortening long interviews but when you with intent cut everyones utterances in a certain direction you are, IMO, not giving a true impression of what was said. You are presenting your view using people that might not agree to it (and in fact many did not agree). Thats not a documentary, thats a partic and biased view on a complex issue. You are of course in your right to have that opinion but must not twerk other peoples sayings to suit yours by taking them out of context. Then its not a documentary!

This is just two examples but i'm sure there are more around. Many documentaries are good and follow the rules. What i think is that we must be aware that these things can occur, especially when the subject is a complicated one. My basic thesis is that when you add fictive elements to a story the whole story turns to fiction. It might be very close to reality but it is still fiction and ought to be labeled as such.