After studying ethnographic (anthropological) film (thankfully only a semester.what a dreadful topic), I've concluded that the quest for realism on film is elusive. The act of observation changes the thing, but that is something left for philosophy. Films that try to show whole actions in their full context without any artistic concessions end up collapsing under their own tedium (i.e. they are boring as hell). Every documentary (whether it likes it or not, but not all to the same degree) twists the space-time continuum in an effort to portray a more "true reality" (whatever that means). Even editing or adding narration OR choosing what to film distorts reality in ways that beyond the tolerance of some ethnographic film scholars. They get into some pretty absurd debates regarding the minutia of so called distortions of reality. I just say make your film and if it's good people will watch. Suspension of disbelief, anyone?

...

With all this debate I wonder if anybody else feels that the whole thing is just a little disingenuous.

Here we have the film maker filmed asleep in bed to be woken at the crack of dawn by Zorn, already up and working at the mastering suite. (Who was waiting camera in hand to catch the moment? How come there is a camera on Zorn while the director lies asleep in bed?) The filmmaker gives up her attempts to film the master and, despite his prolonged pieces to camera (a filmed lecture?), he slips enigmatically away. But wait a minute the whole thing is published on Zorn's own label. Perhaps all is not quite as it seems.