3.8 Article

Based on actual facts: Documentary Inscription in Fiction Films

期刊

STUDIES IN DOCUMENTARY FILM
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 1-19

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17503280.2020.1854072

关键词

Documentary; fiction; rhetoric; truth-effects; facts; discourse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article examines the discursive functions of expressions like "based on actual facts" in fiction films, suggesting that one function is to separate fictional stories from textual and ideological criticism and create a semblance of discursive transparency. It also highlights how reality is equated with a specific form of representation through similar formulas, and how fictional discourse supposedly rooted in actual facts endorses a truth-effect characteristic of documentary narratives.
This article analyzes the discursive functions of the expression 'based on actual facts', or related utterances such as 'based on real events', 'based on a true story', 'inspired by a true story', etc., through which documentary rhetoric is inscribed in fiction films. It is concluded that one of these functions is to substract fictional stories from textual and ideological criticism by means of a supposed closeness to 'factuality', creating a simulacrum of discursive transparency. Through the formula 'based on real facts', and similar ones, reality is identified with a specific form of representation, i.e. with a particular rhetoric. This is produced through a double movement: on the one hand, it is assumed that documentary film is or should be a faithful reflection of a reality that precedes it, and that it is, as a discourse, subordinated to and at the service of that supposed pre-discursive reality; on the other hand, once this candid perspective on documentary narrative has been assumed, the fictional discourse that is said to be 'based on actual facts' endorses with the truth-effect of documentary narratives ('factual truth') the discourse on values that is characteristic of fiction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据