Evman (15th Jun 2006 15:28)
Thanks for the mention in the news post Tarn, it's a first for me!
All in all though thanks for the excellent advice and I'll take it into consideration.
Tarn (15th Jun 2006 14:12)
Evman wrote:
Please leave your politics out of this and your vote/comments
While I agree debate in this thread should focus as much as possible on the filmmaking involved in the production of the documentary, I don't think you can expect people to leave their politics out of it entirely.
Inevitably, if somebody disagrees with the analysis presented here, they will probably not think as positively about the documentary as somebody who is a big Reagan fan - that's inevitable, and impacts on the comments and votes, whether you like it or not.
Quote:
Just because you seem to dislike Reagan doesn't mean we have to include some of his shortcomings (and I wholeheartedly admit that he has shortcomings)
Quote:
Did our documentary really give off a different vibe? Because we certainately support that he accelerated the downfall, but didn't cause it. What could we have changed to make our point more obvious?
I think you answered your own question in the previously quoted post. While you may not have portrayed Reagan to be the ultimate conqueror of communism, the lack of criticism or alternative analysis inevitably creates that
impression - in the asbence of negativity, the documentary comes across as being 100% in awe of Reagan, whether this was your intention or not.
While your closing statements try to illustrate a more balanced viewpoint, the tone created up to that point is one of Reagan being the hero. The choice of footage, music and narration all serves to create this impression.
On the other hand, this doesn't mean that you needed to include a list of all his dirty laundry - as you say, the focus of the documentary was on his effect on communism: you weren't trying to give an all-encompassing account of Reagan's political career.
What may have helped balance the documentary a little more would have been a few statements along the lines of "While Reagan now has his detractors, there is no doubting he played a significant part..." or "Though Reagan's term of office was as controversial and difficult as any president's, he nevertheless had a crucial impact on..." etc.
These statements would have to be placed near the start of the documentary, and would have set a slightly different tone. Note that you don't have to go into detail, or even say that you agree with the more negative viewpoints. The trick is to make the audience know that you are
aware of the debates. That way, even if you don't cover the issues, the audience feel comfortable that you know what you're talking about. That way, people that have strong opposing political views won't feel so 'left out'.
Overall excellent stuff though, which is why I mentioned it in this month's round-up news post.
Evman (15th Jun 2006 01:34)
Jazzmanian wrote:
For this subject, while it is clear that Reagan definitely played a significant role in the downfall of the Soviet Union, it's also true that many historians feel that the USSR through that entire period was already unstable and on the verge of economic collapse and social chaos, so Reagan may have simply had more of a role of hastenting the inevitable than being the primary author of it.
Well thank you for your very long review. It was very helpful.
I must point out something about the above statement. In the concluding section of the documentary we say that -
"While it would be a mistake to claim that Ronald Reagan singlehandedly ended the Cold War, it would be nearly impossible to deny that it would have come when it did after another 8 years of detente..."
Did our documentary really give off a different vibe? Because we certainately support that he accelerated the downfall, but didn't cause it. What could we have changed to make our point more obvious?
