Certain Agendas Ruin Historical Documentaries

Oct 2016
What bothers me in any historical portrayal, be it an attempt at fiction or a documentary, is an obvious agenda. For example, portraying of a certain historically prominent character which has been generally accepted as belonging to one race suddenly appearing as a totally different one.

This was done in a documentary of Attila the Hun, where Attila was portrayed as a Northern European when all the historical documents describe him clearly as Eastern Asiatic.

Another documentary has the Caribbean Native American Tainos portrayed as sub-Saharan African when all the historical documents tell us otherwise. Or else having the historical figure displaying overt sexual preferences and subsuming all other aspects of his or her life around that piquant agenda point.

Once such agendas become more than obvious, I find it extremely difficult to pay attention to the rest of the film and find myself asking what exact evidence do the filmmakers have to support that portrayal. In short, if a controversial issue is to be included, then a respect for the audience's intelligence would demand that the evidence for that portrayal be included as well instead of serving it up as if it were some sacred untouchable indisputable fact.

Once that credibility is lost in that way, the viewer begins to wonder what other liberties they took and everything else they say becomes suspect.
Aug 2012
Washington State, USA.
I'm glad someone else has noticed this sort of thing. I hate politics that is inserted into movies to train the audience on how to think. It really is wrecking entertainment.
As far as documentaries go, anything made before Cable TV is usually better. They will never make one about WW2 that is as good as World at War that was produced in the 1970's.