Iain Forsyth and Jane Pollard made a very interesting "documentary" last year. It's called 20,000 Days On Earth and it tells the story of writer/musician Nick Cave. But there's a catch. This film is a reenactment of sorts... with the actual people rolling through a fictitious "day in the life" scenario.
The film looks beautiful and this quality of camera work and lighting could only be achieved in a predetermined sequence. But it still strikes me as odd. For each of 20,000 Days On Earth's positive qualities, there are several negatives that seem to interfere. For instance, the scenes that take place in Cave's car where he is interviewing ghosts from his past may seem surprisingly open and direct in their subject matter. But of course one could not get negative personalities from Cave's life into such a car, so the conversations had within always grapple with too much lightheartedness. And if I'm being totally honest... the music (which is the main subject of the film) does nothing for me.
Now this flick was nominated for a BAFTA which is the only reason I wound up watching it. But I tend to disagree with the British Academy's choice. This film is not, in my opinion, eligible for the label of "documentary." 20,000 Days On Earth is a very interesting film... but I personally don't get what purpose such an exercise in vanity can achieve. This flick will likely always exist in my mind as a strange kind of mystery. A puzzle without a solution.