Back

@maelduin13 Because the get at different aspects of history, and engage the viewer in different ways.

Documentaries tend to focus on the facts and details of some event. Which is important, absolutely.

But biopics are more likely and free to draw you in emotionally, to capture the essence of the event, to put you in the shoes of the people involved, to convey what happened more concisely and compellingly.

Ideally, a biopic is a jumping off point to dive into the history.

@maelduin13 In any case, documentaries are already plenty fictional. Many take a super wide scope, so are forced to ignore a bunch of details.

And they all have a point of view deliberate or not. At minimum, implicitly via the angle or perspective or what they choose to ignore as unimportant. It's a reflection of all who made it as much as it is the real event.

That doesn't make them any less valuable, they just also have their narrative.

@maelduin13 Both can be great, and both can suck and do damage to their subject matter. But when watching/reading either, it's all about keeping in mind the goals of the creator, and what they're trying to say, and how accurate to reality they're aiming to be.

@auzzy

Of course documentaries - and books - are also vulnerable to bias, inaccuracy and fictionalisation.

But by definition, if you are seeking accuracy, objectivity etc as a creator, a documentary or a non-fictionalised book should be the preferred medium.

For me the dramatization, writing of dialogue, emotional manipulation will always get in the way. Particularly when done according to Hollywood formula.