It would be unwise to judge that that either narrative or documentary to be more authentic than the other. Both formats have an underlying form of fiction and are never a true reflection of reality as producers seek to reconstruct and narrate stories in their perspectives. As both formats usually leaves some issues undiscussed due to 'complexities of subplots' and screen time, it denies viewers the opportunity to open up debates and to further investigate and construct the real truth. Adding to the viewer's inability to evaluate sources (eg comparisons with written history) and the logics behind arguments, history may be open to distortion through narrative and documentary.
To most people, documentary may be seen more truthful as it usually involves actual participants' testimonies and real-life footages. However, these visuals are selected and edited, to be arranged in a way that allows producers to present their version of realism to the viewers. In The Real Buddy Holly Story, Paul McCartney seeks to establish the Buddy Holly as remembered by family and friends and how Buddy had influence the rest of the music world. The testimonies may have been distorted as memories may not be accurate and emotions have evolved to make a legend out of Buddy. The documentary did make corrections to the film version and cover other events, such as there were 3 members of Crickets and that Buddy's music was actually heard outside of USA at that time (he had to embark on a world tour!). However, it did not go into deep discussion about what happened to Buddy's wife after his death. Criticism and/or negative discussions may have been left out of the documentary as the producers seek to present a Buddy that the world should have remembered. Eventually, we don't manage to construct the whole truth as we only restrict ourselves to the past 'realties' that the documentary tells us.
Personally, I prefer a narrative film because it provides rich visual imageries, which helps us to reconnect with the collective memory of that era. It gives the audiences a more constructive structure of the story, and this leads to better memory retention for the audiences when they retell the story. There is also an element of flexibility which allows film-makers to express their thoughts and views on certain issues. In The Buddy Holly Story, racial issues were highlighted and viewers can certainly relate to these issues with respect to current situations.
Movie-goers consistently seek to revisit certain emotions when watching a film, and using these emotions, audiences can choose to make personal connections with the applied meanings that a film-maker wants to deliver. In most stories, people are more likely to selectively remember the struggles, the inspirations and the way the story ends. Through The Buddy Holly Story, we do remember the struggles Buddy and the Crickets had, how Maria had been a source of encouragement, and that Buddy Holly was a great performer until the day he dies.
To most people, documentary may be seen more truthful as it usually involves actual participants' testimonies and real-life footages. However, these visuals are selected and edited, to be arranged in a way that allows producers to present their version of realism to the viewers. In The Real Buddy Holly Story, Paul McCartney seeks to establish the Buddy Holly as remembered by family and friends and how Buddy had influence the rest of the music world. The testimonies may have been distorted as memories may not be accurate and emotions have evolved to make a legend out of Buddy. The documentary did make corrections to the film version and cover other events, such as there were 3 members of Crickets and that Buddy's music was actually heard outside of USA at that time (he had to embark on a world tour!). However, it did not go into deep discussion about what happened to Buddy's wife after his death. Criticism and/or negative discussions may have been left out of the documentary as the producers seek to present a Buddy that the world should have remembered. Eventually, we don't manage to construct the whole truth as we only restrict ourselves to the past 'realties' that the documentary tells us.
Personally, I prefer a narrative film because it provides rich visual imageries, which helps us to reconnect with the collective memory of that era. It gives the audiences a more constructive structure of the story, and this leads to better memory retention for the audiences when they retell the story. There is also an element of flexibility which allows film-makers to express their thoughts and views on certain issues. In The Buddy Holly Story, racial issues were highlighted and viewers can certainly relate to these issues with respect to current situations.
Movie-goers consistently seek to revisit certain emotions when watching a film, and using these emotions, audiences can choose to make personal connections with the applied meanings that a film-maker wants to deliver. In most stories, people are more likely to selectively remember the struggles, the inspirations and the way the story ends. Through The Buddy Holly Story, we do remember the struggles Buddy and the Crickets had, how Maria had been a source of encouragement, and that Buddy Holly was a great performer until the day he dies.