and to claim that this is an increasing "trend" in troubling the documentary with footage that is not actual is not quite right either, the field was essentially born with Nanook - all recreations and stagings (for a fur ad)
I certainly wasn't suggesting this... just in case there is any confusion on that.
listening back, i got it from you saying "blurring the lines of documentary and narrative here, and we've seen that line getting blurred more and more as time goes on, i don't even know how this movie can be considered a documentary...none of the footage is real"
perhaps my initial understanding wasn't right on but it is still unclear to me what you meant as you seem to say there is some new trend of documentary being less "documentary-like"
No, not a new trend... hey, I studied Nanook of the North in film school too... just that the line continues to get blurred in interesting ways, and yes, probably "more and more" recently... people experimenting with and deliberately blurring those lines vs. filmmakers like Flaherty who weren't responding to what came before.
it seems you contradict yourself here a bit. anyway, not so sure i'd agree that the line is more blurred
or blurred more interestingly of late. what would you base this on? i'd prolly say the 60s-70s was the era when documentary conventions were played with much more - verite, impact of feminist film theory, boom in experimental cinema. more recently (referring to her work of 84 and 97 that i know) i think Godmilow has done good stuff to test documentary, and i have faith that Minh-ha has, though i have yet to experience any of her work