] The point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine
] is dishonest. It is fraudulent. It fixes upon a theme,
] and advances it, whenever necessary, by deception. It
] even uses the audio/video editor to assemble a Heston
] speech that Heston did not give, and to turn sympathetic
] phrases into arrogant ones. You can't even trust the
] narrator to read you a plaque or show you a speech, for
] Pete's sake.
]
] The bottom line: can a film be called a documentary when
] the viewer cannot trust an iota of it, not only the
] narration, but the video? I suppose film critics could
] debate that one for a long time, and some might prefer
] entertainment and effect to fact and truth. But the
] Academy Award rules here are specific. Rule 11 lays out
] "Special Rules for the Documentary Award." And it begins
] with the definition: "A documentary film is defined as a
] non-fiction motion picture . . . ." It goes on to say
] that a documentary doesn't always have to show the
] "actual occurrence": it can employ re-enactment, etc.,
] "as long as the emphasis is on factual content and not on
] fiction."

Stupid Academy Award - Bowling for Columbine