I agree that it was an odd choice to make it part docudrama, part documentary. I wish that I knew where they came up with some of the words that the actor said. Were they Smith's, or more dramatization? But I found it easy enough to accept those scenes for what they were and enjoy the interviews, the timeline of his life, and of course, the many photographs. You should view it again and try to overlook the dramatization parts and enjoy the rest. I think that there is still enough there to make it worthwhile.ann said:Hmm,
i got the video years ago, and couldn't stand to watch it; the reenactment of his life was the issue with me. Acting was bad, perhaps i need to drag it out and revisit to see if i have changed. It was a real disappointment as i love his work.
Suzanne Revy said:And I think I'll move the Steiglitz one to the top of the queue!!
Flotsam said:...
Has anyone watched the "Masters of Photography: Diane Arbus" documentary? How is it?
Flotsam said:Thanks for clearing up the source for the actors words, Bill. It makes the film even more enjoyable.
[edit] Also, I am printing out your list of other photodocs. Thanks for posting it.
Flotsam said:Sorry Bill, that was supposed to be Actor's not Actors. I was only referring to Peter Riegert. My fault
One thing that I found interesting and never considered before was that for a photo essayist, Life was really the only game in town back then. If you weren't working for them, you better find another line of work. Can you think of any other 1950s mags that did photo essay features? I'm thinking maybe National Geographic and, didn't Look do photographic features?
This is a historical question, I was busy gestating and being born at the time and didn't have a lot of spare time for reading magazines.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?