In Reply to: for goodness sakes -- documentaries are no different than historical pieces posted by chris e. on December 3, 2005 at 01:47:14:
Chris,First my detractors (the same usual handful of 'losers' who - when forced to think on new ideas - throw out their only paltry attack of "troll") can't answer. Anything not thought before.
My point is that filmmakers (even the best) are several layers/ levels BELOW even an average-rated historian. The average historian is trained in his subject, meaning trained in the limitations of presenting objectivity. Filmmakers are not. Furthermore, popular culture *enshrines* makers of movies in a way that no other area is (two exceptions: music-makers and sports-players). All know this. Resultingly, persons attracted to filmmaking - even the 'serious' ones with a moral message to convey - want glitz and glamor.
Simple question: sight unseen and name unknown, would you trust a movie of World War II or a book about World War II?
Respect,
Guy* Verbatim and not verboten *
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: for goodness sakes -- documentaries are *less* valid... - Guy 21:03:14 12/03/05 (2)
- I tend to agree with you -- I'd go with the book (nt) - chris e. 07:07:41 12/05/05 (1)
- Re: Too bad the suckers for this visual medium don't see the same .... - Guy 03:41:42 12/06/05 (0)