Speaking of the use of "creativity" in documentaries, let me mention two further examples: In a documentary on the assasination of Lincoln, a brown-tinted "newsreel" shows Lincoln leaving the White House for Ford's Theatre. The footage has the look that one would suppose an 1865 newsreel would have had, had there been one. A recent documentary on Pearl Harbor advances the argument that FDR knew a number of specific facts about the Japanese attack in advance, but failed to share them with the local Commanders at Peral Harbor in order to maximize public outrage. At key points in the narrative a still picture of Roosevelt is shown. The picture shows FDR with a furtive expression on his face. It supports emotionally the documentary's message. A third documentary contains a discussion of Brown v. Board of Education. When the case is mentioned, the audience is shown nodding approval. In fact, at the time, the audience was politely receptive but did not nod approval. The audience nodding was actually a response to another discussion. I am not troubled by the first of these because it is an obvious dramatic device and should be understood as such. I am troubled by the use of unflatering photographs to convey a specific dishonest intention, and the rearranging of audience responses to show non-existent approval. What is your reaction? ---- To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]