I've been having trouble with documentaries lately. So much of our reactions to them seems based on whether or not we're interested in the subject, and less in the unique ways the story is told.
but sometimes that a story is told at all is unique. that said, i don't find the need to fetishize
the new and assume that there is something better about a unique style or technology being utilized. if the objective of documentary is to teach/share
new information (whether that be content or form (not that i want to press the case that there is much of a difference there)), then what matters is the reception of the text and whether or not it is understood by the audience.
sean, question for you. that you have trouble with an interest in subject matter, is this to say that you judge documentaries only on form? to get a better idea where you are coming from, which documentaries do you like (and why)?
A documentary's primary focus should indeed be to inform us on a particular subject.
I think the focus of a documentary should be to document an unscripted event—one that would be happening whether the camera was there or not. Hence, footage of some guy on a tightrope in New York is documentary footage; an interview with that guy and any dramatizations based on his life are not. It would also help if there wasn't a lot of editing involved, no outside music, etc.
why do you think this is what a documentary should be?
to me that sounds horrible. a very stagnant idea of what a document is, or can be. of course, there is always outside-the-camera editing, which "purist" positions, like you take here, ignore.