when we were kings documentary or feature film
When We Were Kings A popular topic for discussion concerning “When We Were Kings”, is if this film is a documentary or a creative feature film, and where the boundaries between these two categories are blurred. Through my study of “When We Were Kings”, I considered the five key qualities Michael Weinberger gave to define film documentary. ... Much of the Gast’s work, however, leaks outside these boundaries into those of feature film. To me, his film is more a creative interpretation than a documentary. One guideline in creating a true documentary is that it must not attempt to recreate the truth. ... In the film, Gast uses this singer, and her evocative “breath-singing”, as a symbol of evil, the “succubus” from a myth mentioned earlier in the film. ... The African children marching to Jazz-Funk could also be seen as a recreation of the truth, as at intervals throughout the film, it is clear that the clip’s original sound has been overridden with Jazz-Funk, and that the children have been framed to appear to be dancing to such music. These minor “re-creations” need to be kept in mind when considering “When We Were Kings” as a documentary, and a feature film. A documentary must claim objectivity. “When We Were Kings” breaches this objectivity in many ways. It is almost impossible to entirely avoid this; however, there are still many subjective elements in the film which I could confidently say are avoidable. ... The glorification of boxing, through Norman Mailer, George Plimpton, Spike Lee, and the film’s mood itself, is a good example. In the fight scenes throughout the film, there is no blood, no grunts of pain, no gory details of the reality of boxing, but rather a censored view and glorification of boxing. ... Another major subjectivity appearing in the film was the sole opinions and stories told by the narrators, Normal Mailer and George Plimpton.