George I couldn't agree more.  Art is one thing, historical "fact"
another.    They may  - and often do - coincide nicely but they need not
.  I like Da Vinci's "Last Supper" though it certainly is arguable that
it's not straight history.  Certainly the seating arrangement is
speculative.
John  White
YSU
georgejmyersjr wrote:

> "Barry Lyndon" interestingly, had candle-lit interiors recorded on
> film using Zeiss satellite lenses adapted to attach to the camera
> housing. Still a difficult type of scene to film I imagine despite
> Kodak selling snapshot film that claims to take birthdays in the dark
> ("burning down the house" song should have been included in the
> commercial) I only more recently saw the film and had some questions
> about the final reel seemed grainy or out of registration compared to
> the rest of the "dead on" film and posted a question at
> cinematography.com having once seen a film of film grain made by Paul
> J. Sharits while at the Media Center in Buffalo, NY for English
> Department classes in film. Perhaps just time has changed the original
> last reel (still missing from Sergei Eisenstein's "The Idiot"
> apparently in a row with Stalin on how the film should end. Anyone out
> there got a clue where it is?) and should be copied, or preserved and
> restored. Many films are different than their histories perhaps
> because film is not history. The stories are often changed and the
> film creates a different visceral experience than the logical
> procedure of thought. An interesting book is "Information Theory and
> Esthic Perception" by Abraham Moles that describes some of the levels
> of experience (so did Timothy Leary in the 1970's) presented by media
> and information and/or the lack of it as defined by Shannon. I don't
> know how this happened in the Five Points but an archaeologist was
> shown to hold up an artifact and state Charles Dickens was wrong. That
> to me almost borders on absurdity. To label a work of fiction is
> asking for trouble in my opinion. George Myers