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