[Ruy Horta]

Mark, thanks for sharing your experience.

The main problem IMHO is the trend to visualize the events, this has become the prime mover in many of these programs, be it reenacting or CG. Both probably consume most of the budget.

Look at older documentaries, like the BBC's epical WW1 and 2 productions, or the German Damals - Vor Vierzig Jahren, relying on the strength of contemporary images (moving and still) with interviews, and the emphasis is on history.

A dutch production team is having good success here with their In Europe, the first series covering modern Europe up to the middle of WW2, the new series continuing from that point. The series being proof that there is a viable market for a more "serious" approach.

Documentaries like the one made about PQ17 and the Battle of the Java Sea, are both very good examples of the "pure" approach that have lost nothing in intensity by relying on original material and interviews alone.

Need we discuss the strength of a production like Shoah?

IMHO the main culprit, and I must admit that I have reached the point of hating it, is the docudrama approach. Its like learning about the American Civil War by watching the North and South mini-series. I don't mind enjoying a series like North and South, as long as it is clear that I'm watching an entertainment program.

With CG, I'm still convinced that it can serve some purpose as long as it is not the main dish. The double edge with CG is that it is easy to falsify history, yet leave an image in the viewer's mind "that is worth a thousand words".

It feels like twenty to thirty years ago, before the impact of commercial TV made itself felt in Europe they simply made better documentaries. Call it a Golden Age for lack of a better word, with a smarter and more engaged look at the world.

Today it often feels like the age of the lowest common denominator, at least in terms of documentaries.