Video link is here:
Discussing how it would or wouldn’t be classed as a documentary, applying Honess Roes’ ‘Taxonomy for documentary’ and what arguments presented by Nichols or Formenti might question that definition.
- I consider this short animation about the testimony of abductees to be a documentary. In line with the third entry in Honess Roes’ ‘Taxonomy for documentary’ that “has been presented as a documentary by its producers and/or received as a documentary by audiences, festivals or critics”.
- Nichols argues that “Comprehension itself becomes a social act” of transformative understanding rather than an abstract mental process while the use of psychoanalytic terms like desire, lack, or paranoia to make social points metaphorically yields to a vocabulary designed expressly for historical interpretation such as project, intentionality and the social imaginary”.
- But it may be Conflicting somewhat with Honess Roes’ third definition of animated documentary, Nichols believes it should be in line with understanding the fate of contemporary and older works rather than mere documentation.
- Abstract forms are used to express the terrifying testimony of abductees, alien owls, etc. are used to metaphorically reflect the fear of the abductees.
