Gomez on Culloden

ONce again this is pretty good analysis of a watkins work. It gives the background and the post production and product feeling of the director with regards to his piece. Gomez does well at showing the difference in the honest (or sincereity) of watkins fictional work versus the dishonesty of something that is claiming to be entirely real. This is the difference between someone like watkins versus say ken burns. Not that Ken burns isn't willing to tell the truth, but Ken Burns is never going to be willing to delve into the psyche as much as watkins would. Furhtermore burns works solely in a factual form that is based on written acounts, and documented testimonies, but Burns always comes off as detached, and not really apealing to be honest. Anyone can tell a story in a monotone voice, and bore everyone in the room. Watkins' stories may not be real, but he keeps the viewer riveted, and he make them care about the situation that occurred, and the people harmed by it. Burns tried to show america the civil war, and he put most of america to sleep. Culloden raised anger, disgust, and hate in its viewers. It's a shame that he was so disappointed with the final result.