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