SCREEN-L Archives

December 1997, Week 3

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:32:17 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2