I don't really care because I won't vote for any of them. Touching the Void is the same kind of movie as Close-Up - mostly recreated with the real personalities involved. The latter has passed into legend because it's considered to have started a new genre, but it's really doing the same things that documentaries have been doing since Nanook of the North and Grass. In Vanda's Room has everyone as themselves; it's artsy vérité. There's nothing that's close to a documentary about Histoire(s) du cinéma. It's not narrative, but it's just Godard philosophizing over new footage of himself and a few others while occasional old, fragmented film clips are shown, half the time for no apparent reason. It may be a home movie, but that doesn't make it a documentary. IMDb's genre labels are usualy provided to them by others. Remember, Waltz with Bashir isn't listed as a doc, but you already verified correctly it was.
Thanks for the response. Much appreciated. This is the kind of participation that is valued in this organization.
First, Histoire(s) du cinema:
Undeniably a work of enormous scope, Jean-Luc Godard's Histoires du cinéma eludes easy definition. An extended essay on cinema by means of cinema. A history of the cinema, and history interpreted by the cinema. An hommage and a critique. An anecdotal autobiography, illuminated by Godard's encyclopedic wit, extending the idiom established by JLG par JLG. An epic - and non-linear - poem. A freely associative essay. A vast multi-layered musical composition. Histoires du cinéma is all of these. It is above all, a work made by a man who loves and is fascinated by the world of film.
For American movie critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, Godard's video series represents the culmination of 20th century filmmaking, and is a work "of enormous importance": "Just as Finnegans Wake, the art work to which Histoires du cinéma seems most comparable, situates itself at some theoretical stage after the end of the English language as we know it, Godard's magnum opus similarly projects itself into the future in order to ask, 'What was cinema?'."
'What was cinema?' I count film essays (Los Angeles Plays Itself is allowed and you all participating should watch it too! I can probably hook anyone up it if they can't find it to watch in their country). Anyway...You're influential, Mark, to me at least, but Rosenabum is a bit more influential.
Close-up. I want to allow this film, and will. Good enough for Sight & Sound, good enough for me:
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-sound-ma.../greatest-docs
Not sure on In Vanda's Room. "Despite its highly fictional nature, its elusive classification and its documentary-like hybridization allowed it to win the FIPRESCI Prize at the Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival in 2001 'for presenting life in its near-original form'" plus various other sources promoting it as semi or quasi-documentary (anyone can see this via google search), I will allow it.
The following is not just to Mark but anyone who is participating...
I am aware that I allowed Walt with Bashir, was even gonna mention it in my last post, and I have considered both In Vanda's Room and Close-up previously. Thing is, I don't want to have to do the legwork but I want cases to be made for each documentary that may not be listed as such on imdb. imdb is convenient for someone like me who took this job reluctantly, but it's not perfect. So proper procedure is necessary. I can't just be stating this is allowed and this isn't without good reasons/research, I'm just the administrator of this thing - not the dictator, and again I don't want to do the digging around myself.
So, from now on, if you want to see something allowed that doesn't conform to the imdb standards you should provide reasons (and preferably links or quotes from legitimate sources) as to why it should be allowed. Cool? I will also be updating the OP to include a section with allowed films that are contrary to the outlined protocol (unless I already did that, not sure), as well as my request above.