Mr Chomsky didn't have any editorial or executive control[0]. What does this documentary add in substance or form that is not a rehash of his previous interviews and writing?
Very little. A couple of graphs, maybe. It is, as you say, a well presented rehash of his previous interviews and writing, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The only thing that's wrong is to call it a documentary, which it clearly isn't -- at least, not in the ordinary sense of the term.
Until you pointed it out, I wasn't aware that Chomsky didn't write it himself. I would ordinarily find that troubling, but the script is closely based on Chomsky's previous writing. I'm confident Chomsky would have checked it carefully and would not have agreed to participate if there was anything he was unhappy about.
The problem with heavy editing of speech is exactly what you say. We find it difficult to dissociate what we see (somebody giving a speech) with what really is happening (editor piecing a narrative together, at the extreme splicing words together phoneme-by-phoneme). I found it edited too heavily, with tedious pacing, and pretentious graphics. Perhaps it's a good first introduction to Chomsky, and I'm happy if that audience finds it a fine movie!
Mr Chomsky gives a lot of interviews. Does he always require a veto power, how would that even work?
10 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 43.6 ms ] threadIs my post being censored?
2. let YouTube take care of that
And a rather good one, in my view.
[0] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3270538/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_w...
Until you pointed it out, I wasn't aware that Chomsky didn't write it himself. I would ordinarily find that troubling, but the script is closely based on Chomsky's previous writing. I'm confident Chomsky would have checked it carefully and would not have agreed to participate if there was anything he was unhappy about.
Mr Chomsky gives a lot of interviews. Does he always require a veto power, how would that even work?
Enjoying it so far.