Talk:Docufiction/Archive 1

Almost non-existing term outside Wikipedia
While docudrama is an established term since the 1960s, you can hardly find any references to "docufiction" on the web or in online dictionaries - except those that are spinoffs of this article. Wikipedia shouldn't be an instigator of new terminology. Unless its core editors can quickly find a number of scholarly references (i.e. not a handful of blogs or lone wolf websites) to back up the very confusing claims in this article, it should be deleted. The book references at the bottom all refer to docudrama, not docufiction. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Country List
Why is the list of films by country? Shouldn't it be in alphabetical order? Ora Stendar 01:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Obscure language in the article requires clarification
As others have complained above, this article uses unorthodox English mixed with obscure academese, which is bad style, and confusing. The meaning is difficult to understand. The purpose of Wikipedia is to explain things in reasonable terms that can be understood without strenuous further research or reflection. Meanings should be immediate and plain. In this article, the following statements are unclear, and have been flagged using the template:


 * "Concerning a film genre in expansion"
 * "when drama is considered interchangeable with fiction"
 * "It also implicates the concept that fiction and documentary are basic genres, due to the ontological status of the filmed image as photography: the double (the image of the subject) is shown as being the same, as real image, as representation and reality in documentary, but as simple representation in fiction: in fiction, an actor stands for another person. Being both, docufiction is a hybrid genre, arising ethical problems concerning truth."
 * "It will be reinforced with imagery."

These obscurities should be rewritten. The same problems disfigure the Ethnofiction article (see Talk:Ethnofiction), written by the same author, User:Tertulius in Portugal, who does not appear, on the evidence, to have a native feeling for the English language. — O'Dea (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been over a year, it's unlikely it's going to be rewritten so I deleted the worst of it. It's was mostly superflous and stating the obvious anyway, do we really need to be told that fiction and documentary are different genres? 121.74.117.248 (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 one external links on Docufiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111118185337/http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/intgenre/intgenre7.html to http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/intgenre/intgenre7.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911104733/http://www.bul.unisi.ch/cerca/bul/memorie/com/pdf/9900Candeloro.pdf to http://www.bul.unisi.ch/cerca/bul/memorie/com/pdf/9900Candeloro.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119000831/http://en.daringtodo.com/?p=4178 to http://en.daringtodo.com/?p=4178
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110913091103/http://www.redchannels.org:80/screenings/2010/quiet_one.html to http://www.redchannels.org/screenings/2010/quiet_one.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111227172219/http://ioncinema.com/news/id/5095/oscilloscope-howl-for-off-beat-docu-fiction-sundance-selection to http://www.ioncinema.com/news/id/5095/oscilloscope-howl-for-off-beat-docu-fiction-sundance-selection
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319052930/http://www.transartinstitute.org/Example_Papers.html to http://www.transartinstitute.org/Example_Papers.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911104733/http://www.bul.unisi.ch/cerca/bul/memorie/com/pdf/9900Candeloro.pdf to http://www.bul.unisi.ch/cerca/bul/memorie/com/pdf/9900Candeloro.pdf
 * Added tag to http://centerforsocialmedia.wikispaces.com/message/view/Ethical+Practices/90224
 * Added tag to http://futureofpublicmedia.wikispaces.com/home
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130423022540/http://filmjourney.weblogger.com:80/2007/03/18/india-matri-bhumi-1958/ to http://filmjourney.weblogger.com/2007/03/18/india-matri-bhumi-1958/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151126053044/http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/reality_in_the_age_of_aesthetics/ to http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/reality_in_the_age_of_aesthetics/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208160404/http://redlemona.de/author/nicholas-rombes-0 to http://redlemona.de/author/nicholas-rombes-0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202235018/http://airmediaworks.org/blog/docufiction-where-art-and-life-merge-and-diverge to http://airmediaworks.org/blog/docufiction-where-art-and-life-merge-and-diverge

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Docufiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831101542/http://transartinstitute.org/About.html to http://www.transartinstitute.org/About.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904022326/http://www.mq2.org/ to http://www.mq2.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208095824/http://cogs.iitgn.ac.in/people/post-doctoral-scholars/dyutiman-mukhopadhyay/ to http://cogs.iitgn.ac.in/people/post-doctoral-scholars/dyutiman-mukhopadhyay/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Section 'Extreme docufition' deleted in the article Docufiction
HI Bearcat, I have noticed you have just deleted the section ‘Extreme docufiction’ in this article. This section has been created on 24 November 2015 and was later improved in order to help understanding its contents, which are crucial to a better and updated definition of the genre. As a result, the number of watchers duplicated and tends to increase. I can’t understand why you did that and am surprised as far as you have been making corrections in the article for over one year and never questioned about the reason that now leads you to amputate the text: “this section doesn't make any sense”. Please reconsider your decision and find a reasonable solution. My best, Tertulius (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the section was absolutely not expressing a coherent and neutral thought — it was a pile of word salad designed to sound smart without actually meaning anything intelligible. And as earlier posts to this talk page and the article's edit history plainly show, I am not the first person to think so either — and whenever it's been removed by other editors in the past you yourself have simply reverted it back in, so there's no evidence of a consensus for its inclusion. And no, I don't believe for a second that the section in question is somehow responsible for causing the number of watchers of this page to increase, either — that's a really incredible claim that doesn't have any supporting evidence at all. And the fact that I've edited the page before is irrelevant as well, because the fact that I edited parts of the page where I had something to contribute (i.e. the titles of John N. Smith and Giles Walker films in the list) doesn't mean I had read the entire article in depth. So we need more than just your own personal opinion on this. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * CONCEPT


 * Extreme docufiction means a hybrid film in which documentary and fiction weigh more or less on the plate, being rare that both have equal weight. The balance needle may be tilted more to one side than to the other. (Scripting the Docufiction: Combining the Narrative and Documentary Modes in a Social Issue Film – thesis by Joseph V. Brown, University of Denver, 1 January 2010)


 * Documentary films rarely arouse empathy feelings among audiences as they aren’t made for that but just to impress them in a different way: showing facts that deal with consciousness, helping one to be more aware of what reality is. They are crude by nature and so they must be. Besides, If audiences hesitate to watch documentaries on “heavy” social issues then these issues must be presented in more subtle or palatable ways (cit. page 2 in Docufiction: Combining the Narrative and Documentary Modes in a Social Issue Film, by Joseph V. Brown). That’s to say being tempered by aesthetic or ethical ingredients, turning into fiction with more or less serious consequences in both their value and their consequences.


 * Tertulius (talk)
 * 20:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That entire thesis says literally nothing that would constitute a definition of "extreme docufiction". The word "extreme" appears just five times in the entire document, in the phrases "extremely important", "extremely dangerous", "extreme closeup", "extremely self-satisfied" or "extreme situation". Nowhere in the entire thesis is there any defnition of "extreme docufiction" as a thing, much less a thing that means anything like what you're claiming. The document simply does not support the content you're trying to reference to it. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

QUOTES
I’m a curious woman, who doesn’t neglect extreme experiences, either in love or in movies (but not without some prudence). That’s why, reading the article docufiction on the English Wikipedia, I noticed that the section first entitled ‘Extreme docufiction’, later improved and renamed ‘Hybridity in docufiction’, was deleted by administrator Bearcat (strange antinomy in a single word!). I was surprised and couldn’t understand why a so useful and coherent contribution had been undone. I guessed the deletion might have been caused by some atavistic frustration that degenerated into a four starred narcissism (‘an emotional problem caused by unreasonable fears or worries’), something I sincerely regret as a woman and lover of animated pictures. First, I doubted of myself. Then I opened the Docufiction talk page in order to check my doubts and at last verified they weren´t groundless: Mr. Bearcat had manipulated the talk page in favor of his arguments, using offensive language to constraint user Tertulius, the editor who humbly improved the section taking in account Mr. Bearcat’s reasons and who was abruptly and indefinitely blocked as editor, despite having been a prolific Wiki collaborator for a long time. That’s why I can’t shut up. That’s why I appeal responsible administrators to take adequate measures face to behaviors so unworthy like this.

Please read these unquestionable testimonies, which help us understand what unfortunately is taking place with Wikipedia nowadays:

QUOTE 1 - «(…) Wikipedia and its stated ambition to “compile the sum of all human knowledge” are in trouble. The volunteer workforce that built the project’s flagship, the English-language Wikipedia – and must defend it against vandalism, hoaxes, and manipulation – has shrunk by more than a third since 2007 and is still shrinking.»

QUOTE 2 - «The number of active editors on the English-language Wikipedia peaked in 2007 at more than 51,000 and has been declining ever since as the supply of new ones got choked off. This past summer only 31,000 people could be considered active editors».

QUOTE 3 - «When asked to identify Wikipedia’s real problem, [hthttp://oliver.ie/about/ Moran] cites the bureaucratic culture that has formed around the rules and guidelines on contributing, which have become labyrinthine over the years. The page explaining a policy called Neutral Point of View, one of “five pillars” fundamental to Wikipedia, is almost 5,000 words long. “That is the real barrier: policy creep,” he says».

QUOTE 4 - «Today’s Wikipedia, even with its middling quality and poor representation of the world’s diversity, could be the best encyclopedia we will get».

QUOTES FROM The Decline of Wikipedia – article by Tom Simonite, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 22, 2013

Catherine Deleuze (occasional reader of texts on animated pictures), 18:12 TMG  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.134.189 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Cute stunt, but you're going to WP:SPI for an IP check. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"First docufictions by country" and "Other notable examples"
Is there referencing for the "First docufictions by country" descriptor? How about for "Other notable examples"? If not, they are going to have to go, since editorial belief is not the litmus we use for inclusion in Wikipedia. We use sourced info, or not at all. I'll wait a week or so before culling the sections of unsourced examples. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments
die verknüpfung der deutschen und englischen webseite sind hier falsch: docufiction führt zu doku-drama und umgekehrt docu-drama führt zur deutschen doku-fiction: bitte korrigieren!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.194.41.222 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is House of Leaves a docufiction? 97.77.51.46 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm baffled by most of this article. I suspect that part of the problem is that it focuses on splitting hairs about abstruse technical definitions, and part of the problem is that the writing in it doesn't always conform to standard English usage. But I'm not sure of either of those things.

Example of problem: What does "(often understood as docudrama)" mean? Does it mean that some people use the term to mean "docudrama"? That some people use the term "docudrama" to mean "docufiction"? Given that the docudrama article says that that term is wrongly used to mean "docufiction," I think the docufiction article really ought to start with a clear explanation of exactly what docufiction is. If I had any idea what it is, I would rewrite this article myself.

"a cinematographic work in a genre mixing fiction and documentary" -- surely there's a simpler and more straightforward way of saying this? How about something like "The term 'docufiction' refers to any mix of fiction and documentary in film"?

"This term appeared at the beginning of the 20th century and is commonly used in several languages." It's not commonly used in English; I'm pretty well-read, and I've never seen it before, while I've seen the term "docudrama" hundreds or thousands of times. Compare the Google search results for the two terms, for example. Merriam-Webster's 11th (dictionary) lists "docudrama" but does not list "docufiction"; same with Merriam-Webster's 3rd unabridged. I would argue that "docufiction" appears to be an obscure technical term (at least in English).

"Docudrama is wrongly used as a synonym of docufiction, confusing drama with fiction." What does that mean? Who's confusing drama with fiction? Why is this a misuse? Can someone cite a definitive source that says its a misuse (or else remove this claim)? Can someone explain what the technical difference is between the two things, rather than just saying that they're not the same?

"The use of docufiction is common in television, consisting in illustrating facts or events with actors." Again this is a much too roundabout and clunky way of saying what the article is trying to say. How about something like "Docufiction is the use of actors to illustrate actual facts or events; it's common in television documentaries"? Or wherever it actually is common in; I don't personally see this on TV very much, so saying it's "common in television" is an overstatement. It's probably common in certain genres of television; this article should say which ones.

"The term docudrama is apter in this sense." I have no idea what this means -- the article just got done telling us that the term "docudrama" is a misuse, and that what the article is describing is docufiction. So we've just finally defined docufiction; how can "docudrama" be an apter term for the thing we've just defined as "docufiction"?

"The term docufiction is sometimes used to refer to literary journalism (creative nonfiction)." How does this connect to the definition just given? How about giving a definition that actually applies to all the examples?

"It also implicates the concept that fiction and documentary are basic genres, due to the ontological status of the filmed image as photography: the double is shown as being the same, as representation and reality. Being both, docufiction is a hybrid genre, arising ethical problems concerning truth." This is some kind of academic and/or technical jargon; it means very little to me. I can sort of vaguely figure out what some bits of it mean (I do know what "ontological" means, for example), but I don't think it has any place in a general-purpose encyclopedia article.

And more generally, I'm not sure that this article should be in Wikipedia at all. The article gives me the impression that the term "docufiction" is abstruse academic technical jargon; I'm sure it's very useful for film-studies majors, but the assertion that this term is more correct than "docudrama" seems inappropriate to me, and unsupported by actual real-world usage. If I had more time or energy to devote to this, I would propose this article for deletion.

--Elysdir (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article badly wants for citations on almost every statement. The claim that "docufiction" is an accepted and known term dating back to the early 20th century is especially absurd: I am 62 years old, an English major, a film buff, and a literate person in general, and have never *once* seen this word.  This seems to be a craftily crafted article attempting to justify a weaselword of either the author's own invention or else the invention of a likeminded contemporary, who finds too many personal icons of "fact" (especially in film) being exposed as fictional.  The word "docufiction" itself is oxymoronic - something is either documentary (a record of fact), docudrama (a wholly or partially dramatically re-enacted actual historical event with fictional/dramatized material being incidental to the known events and used only to bridge continuity gaps), historical fiction (a fictional work set against the background of actual historic events, and even including episodic re-enactments of actual events but dominated by the fictional material and characters), and just plain fiction.

I support deletion of this "article". - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.196.136 (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Was it fun to see them Nhickok (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a word that deserves discussion, but I see why some disagree, as the page does not clarify enough what this form really is ... how it is different than documentary, docudrama, and mockumentary. This isn't helped by the fact that some people at film festivals have adopted the term perhaps too broadly, with "docufiction" used synonymously with "mockumentary." Scholarship in the area normally distinguishes the two from one another, if only in that mockumentary films like CLOVERFIELD adopt the documentary aesthetic, but let audiences know they aren't real. Docufiction films try to fool the audience with faked footage. Some newsreel camera operators did this in the thirties, for example. Films like HITLER'S REIGN OF TERROR (1934) did it. That film had some actual footage of Hitler mixed with footage purportedly him but played by an actor. So I think the issue is perhaps more with this Wikipedia page than the Docufiction form. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Whomever wrote this
Needs to be smacked upside the head. 'Apter'?! How about MORE APT. sheeesh. --AngelicDemon92 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say this page needs to be rewritten from the ground up. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I'm proposing that this article be merged into Docudrama, so that the term docufiction would redirect to that article.

A hatnote currently says that the two terms are different, but the present article does a hopeless job of explaining what that difference might be. Jheald (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm proposing instead that this article be merged into mockumentary. Docudrama is clearly a reenactment of historical events. Docufiction on the other hand seems like another word for mockumentary, considering mockumentaries CAN be dramatic. If someone can prove otherwise, that this is a widespread term AND what it actually means AND how it's different from the terms in the hatnote, then it can stay. Otherwise, it should be classified as mockumentary. The only way I can see docufiction being its own individual term is if there were a clear subgenre where real-life footage was integrated with a fictional story, but this is exceptionally rare, if it even exists at all. 50.98.197.240 (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No further discussion on this? Okay then, merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.197.240 (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than merge, I'd say that clarity about what distinguishes mockumentary and docufiction is needed. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)