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