Other films with less evocative themes were a documentary drama of growing up as an kid in the indifference of the pre-computerized urban jungle, a film about a woman passing out of romance, called "Still Life". and "Train" where a retired train conductor imagines himself to be part of an ongoing train ride past his window and the window comes across as a metaphor on what he imagines his reality to be.

Here was an artist who had the potential to be surreal as in the "Train" and make relatively mundane situations appealing by having the actor invasion himself still conducting a train from the comfort an armchair and when the imagery reaches a peak than the "window" of his mind crashes and he is left to wonder where his life went.

In "Usure" he panned ahead of the actress, a technique uncommon in filming to create the romantic tension of one lesbian at grips with losing her lover and trying to move across the screen to catch up with her other half. Just the message that the couple had kissed hundreds of times and in every way imaginable added a strong subtext to the short film: signifying how so many couples find that being a couple is less inviting than the thrill of being physically intimate. It is a message, which is all too applicable in any couple relationship.

“Diary” starts off with a group of student film makers out in the woods, doing a horror film project about a mummy (can you see the irony right there?) when they start hearing reports about zombie attacks. At first skeptical, the students soon find out the hard way that the reports are very real, as they encounter zombies everywhere they go in their attempts to find a safe place to wait things out. And through it all, main character Jason (Joshua Close) continues to film events as they happen, much to the irritation of his friends, wanting to get the truth out there for all to see.

As mentioned, “Diary of the Dead” still follows the standard “zombie apocalypse” formula, right down to the “shoot-em-in-the-head” method of taking down the zombies. Thankfully, though, it isn't a completely cookie-cutter product, as there are a couple of things that make it stand out. Obviously, there's the documentary-style the movie was shot in, done from the single-camera POV of the main character. Just like the recent “Cloverfield”, we have a main character who just films everything as it happens, right down to the zombie attacks, unable and unwilling to stop, even as his friends and fellow survivors rip on him about it. One of the main differences here is that the film isn't restricted to just one camera viewpoint, as they later get another camera to use and other camera footage that is later incorporated into the “completed” version of the documentary. The movie also plays out like a standard documentary, complete with narration and music, provided by Jason's girlfriend Debra (Michelle Morgan), rather than looking like a home movie shot on a whim. This helps the film in a great way, adding to the suspense and allowing viewers to see a lot more of what's going on.

Another great twist to the genre that I'm sure a lot of fans will find refreshing is that the characters aren't simply isolated in one spot like they would be in other zombie flicks. Instead, they spend most of the movie traveling around in a Winnebago, going from place to place, encountering other survivors and, of course, zombies at every turn. This especially works in favor of the movie, as we get to see beyond the main group and get examples of how other survivors are trying to survive the disaster, whether it be the group of militants “doing what they have to” or the group of soldiers who steal for what seems to be the heck of it. It kind of turns the movie into a “road trip” flick, but it still helps in a great way and not make it all seem so “standard”.

The movie has the standard ensemble cast of characters you'd expect in a horror flick, but with a few twists, such as the resident blonde, Tracy (Amy Ciupak Lalonde), being not a complete airhead and showing actual some skills and intelligence (check out her rip on women stereotypes in horror movies at the beginning). But probably the most important character of the film is the technology and digital media that has pretty much become the center of our world today. Not only is it the reason for Romero's reboot of his “Dead” franchise (he obviously couldn't continue from his last flick and tell a story like this, hence the necessity), but it's also the focus of the social commentary that he puts into his movies. The director shows how much things like the internet, cell phones, television and whatnot have become such a part of our lives that we're practically dependent on them, even in the midst of a worldwide apocalypse. On the plus side, it allows Jason and his friends to keep tabs on events happening around the world, as other people are uploading their own videos of zombie attacks online. But of course, the same media can also be used against us, as proven in an attempt by authorities to cover up the zombie attacks using edited news footage (we all know that lasted about five seconds). “Diary” truly exposes that double-edged sword to light, showcasing Romero's talents as a storyteller.

The movie truly has some suspenseful moments throughout the picture, mainly centered around whenever the group makes a stop somewhere and you don't know what they'll run into, zombies or other, more hard-edged survivors. Some things even happen off camera, due to the style of the storytelling (and Jason's inability to leave his camera behind), but things can still be heard and make you wonder just what is going on, much like in an old-school horror film where things were often suggested and viewers had to use their imaginations. This was purposely done on Romero's part, as he went back to his independent roots for this film, even making it for only a couple million dollars. You'd hardly know it from the visual effects, which are done rather well, probably even better than most big-budget films. Naturally, there are some blood and gore moments like in any zombie film, but those are kept to a minimum and used only when needed, as opposed to other recent horror films, working greatly in this movie's favor.

The DVD certainly has its share of bonus material, so you won't be lacking in that department. Most of it is the standard “behind-the-scenes” stuff; “For the Record: The Making of "Diary of the Dead"” is a five-part look into the different aspects of the making of the movie, such as the cast, the make-up and visual effects, set design, even a little piece on the director himself. “The First Week” is pretty self-explanatory, a short look into the film's first week of shooting, while “The Roots” is a short interview with Romero about his returning to his independent roots for the film. And, of course, there's the standard commentary that can be played with the film.

But there are also some interesting goodies in the bonus material that I'm sure a lot will enjoy. “Character Confessionals” is the closest we have to deleted scenes, basically a series of little confessionals made by the characters as the apocalypse progresses and showing their reactions to it all. “Familiar Voices” looks into the recording process of background voices for the film made by well-known horror luminaries, revealing three of them (they make you guess the rest on your own). I won't reveal who they are, either, as it's more fun to first watch the movie then see this feature and get the surprise of your life. And of course, the best feature is the “MySpace Contest Winners” feature, showing the five short films that won the grand and first prizes in the contest Romero put on MySpace to promote the movie. I won't reveal who the winners are, but each movie is enjoyable in their own right, whether freaky or just a bit silly.

I'll have to admit it, “Diary of the Dead” is certainly one of the most creative zombie flicks that I've seen, and definitely one of the better horror films out right now. Die-hard fans are sure to add it to their collections, while others will certainly be willing to give it a look. A truly excellent film that will rank as one of Romero's best.

Released by: Dimension Films

Starring: Joshua Close (Jason Creed), Michelle Morgan (Debra), Shawn Roberts (Tony), Joe Dinicol (Eliot), Scott Wentworth (Andrew Maxwell)

Directed by: George A. Romero

Rating: R

Score: 8 out of 10

Documentary makers attempt to subtly position you one way or another, while trying to continue operating under the neutrality façade. In the case of the “Killings at Thurston High”, Kip Kinkle is portrayed as being a victim of his environment when I feel that its apparent at 16 Kinkle was capable of making his own choices. He also at his age should be aware of the consequences of his actions and how they affect the people around him. Even though it's apparent that Kinkle is guilty of his crimes the director of this documentary continually tries to portray Kinkle as the victim in this situation. A victim after he killed 4 people in cold blood and attempted to kill 24 others? Surely it must be the facts that we base our opinions of Kipland Kinkle on and if it is then our opinions of him surely can't be influenced by a documentary that suggests otherwise.

Documentary makers are really no different from film makers they both have pressure on them to make a profit from there films so they attempt to do what's known as “Holly wooding” a film. This means change facts from true events in order to make them more appealing to a mainstream audience. Documentary makers also manipulate events to make them seem more significant then others. An example of this in the documentary is when after the discussion with Kipland's sister describing the level of competition there was between Kip and his sister. Following this the doco cuts to some family footage which attempts to highlight the gulf in talent between Kip and his sister by showing footage of the family in a park attempting gymnastics, it is clear here that Kip's sister is better but its revealed by Kips father that his sister has had several years of gymnastics training so it must be asked what is the significance of being better then a brother four years her junior with no training at all. The clip is not actually relevant but its purpose is to reinforce the message of how poor and unfortunate Kip is.

It could be argued however that there is logic in what the directors trying to say. It certainly is the easier way to dismiss Kinkle as being just plain evil and the director for trying to excuse him of being in the wrong, but there maybe more to it then that. The reasons for Kit's actions that are being displayed may not be entirely untruthful. In fact it could possibly be a decisive factor into figuring out why Kinkle did what he did and how it can be prevented from happening again to another person who perhaps could be led away from that troubled path.

And some people would be inclined to agree with this line of thinking, as it represents a more humanitarian approach to the problem of troubled teens, rather then simply labeling them as psychopaths, this method offers another way for people to accept without forgiving the people involved with the crimes. And understandably this approach is more favorable for people with different moral codes to me.

I fully believe that film makers cannot be trusted, they are very few who are more interested in telling an accurate story then making a money at the expense of the story. Thus is the case I feel with in regards to Kipland Kinkle he is portrayed almost as a contemporary Romeo except rather then being driven from his lover his been driven from his guns and he reacts the same way as Romeo did, with extreme violence towards people who loved him. I am almost disgusted with the director's goal of keeping Kinkle as blameless as possible.

Don't get me wrong-there are scenes in Grizzly Man that almost wrought tears from my cynical eyes. But in moments like Treadwell's spiel on wishing he were gay (“Gay guys? No problem! They go to restrooms and truckstops and perform sex; it's like so easy for them and stuff.”), the audience begins to question his state of mind. Along this same thought, the viewer has to wonder where the line between “dedication” and “mental stability” lies upon witnessing the enthusiasm Treadwell exhibits over discovering a pile of a bear's excrement. “Oh my gosh! The bear, Miss Chocolate, has left me her poop! It's her crap! It was just inside of her and it's still warm! This is a gift!”

There were times at which I was certain I was just being an opinionated jerk-laughing rather than allowing myself to identify with the man on the screen before me. I found myself touched, at times, by Treadwell's dedication, and considered some of the interviewees through the film who spoke ill of his efforts to be idiots. But I never could say that I fully supported Treadwell's cause; at least, not the way he went about pursuing it. It was made clear from the beginning, and especially in the scene where his parents were interviewed, that Treadwell thought his home to be among the bears. His sense of place told him that he belonged with them, not in the human world. Despite this, the end results of Treadwell's efforts to be a bear were more than predictable.

Ultimately, while Grizzly Man was obviously a film made with the intention of spurring thought, I found that the comedic moments heavily outweighed the sincerity of the film. To note this, I will end by describing my favorite scene from the movie: Werner Herzog visits Treadwell's ex-girlfriend and listens to the audio tape that was taken at the scene of Treadwell's death. After telling the woman to stop the tape, Herzog leans forward and melodramatically murmurs a caution: “You must never ever listen to this. You must destroy this.” Not to say that this sentiment should be applied to the film itself, only that a person should be careful in choosing their company while watching this film if she does not want her friends to think her insensitive.

Concepts from academic documentary theory have been productively introduced into other fields of film, notably film history, drama and reality TV theory, where new work on concepts of representing reality is derived from the ideas of Nichols. And yet a number of questions concerning the cultural implications of early theorists work on the representing of reality in documentary remain unsolved. As Nichols sees it, “the invocation of, and promise to gratify, a desire to know”, is of that contemporary condition which scholars lead by Bruzzi, Carroll, Platinga, Izod, Kilburn and others see as an acceptance of “that a documentary can never be the real world” (Bruzzi, 2000:7). So, "representing reality", the title and focus of Nichols work is an implicated term. In one sense it refers to "the images of things", which invoke different conceptions of filming events: the image as the "real" twist of the visual representation made meaningful through "our hunger for Truth"; reality as an ordered story of the event, authorised by domestic documentary-making procedures. For Nichols, representing reality is a boundary that depends on ideology of images and the imaginary:

“Documentary realism also presents a pointedly historical dimension. It is a form of visual historiography. Its combination of representations of the world and representations about the world, of evidence and argument, give it the ambivalent status that the word “history” also enjoys: history is at once the living trajectory of social events as they occur and the written discourse that speaks about these events” (Nichols, 1991:177).

More particularly, Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary is a wide-ranging history in the field of documentary as a concept or practice. It covers various periods and discusses documentary from various Modes of Representation. Much of the book is devoted to the detailed domain of documentary, where a number of precise distinctions between types of documentaries are made and where the diverse ways images and narratives have functioned is elaborated. Nichols is concerned to go beyond the parameters of an aesthetic history, analyzing the representing of the reality in documentary as a multidimensional phenomenon involving documentary form, documentary history, defining documentary, the image and ideology, a community of practitioners, an institutional practice, a corpus of texts, and constituency of viewers.

Reading Culture: Documentary As A Test

One of the most interesting and productive moves Nichols makes is to extend a discussion of a formal device to include historical and cultural accounts of the relationship between documentary not in institutional (discursive) nor textual terms but in relation to its viewers. In this regard representing of the reality can be seen as a kind of documentary test case for debates in contemporary cultural studies and critical theory. Nichols, however, specifically interrogates the factual status of realism and foregrounds the fictional status of objectivity. Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, which praises fascism, and Grierson's Drifters, which compliments the fishermen are used in his analysis of realism in documentary film to build up the vision of how "the question of voice" can be related to the “authorial personality and textual persuasion, that differs from that of fiction” (p. 165). He notes that “similar stylistic techniques comes into play but the end result is a distinct mix of style and rhetoric, authorial personality and textual persuasion that differs from that of fiction” (p.165). Nichols argues that this is a case in modernist narrative in documentary where both "objective representations of the historical world" and "rhetorical overtness" are taken into consideration to communicate an argument about the world (p.166).

Nichols also discusses Grierson's representation of the documentary, which, he argues, foregrounds the importance of the filmmaker's devotion in establishing a particular relationship to the past: he relates Grierson's vision of a documentary film movement as managerial elite. This suggests that Nichols implies that Grierson is at the forefront of the documentary movement. For Nichols, Griersonian documentary assures the immensity of actions through rituals of involvement of the documentary participant. In addition, George Lukács's notion of "lack of convictions" is discussed in relation to Scott, Balzak and Tolstoy's experience of describing their characters. Nichols describes that the novelistic creation of characters differs from the documentary highlighting of characters, because the later is related to the involvement of the characters, which implicates the fact that characters are not only the choice of writers, but are part of the politics of representation. As Nichols clarifies, the politics of representation introduce questions of power and authority, showing that documentary is also the politics of representation.

Nichols certainly fulfils one of the goals of his project; namely, to elaborate the complexity and richness of representing reality in the documentary. On the general issue of histories that are attentive to discourses, however, there is perhaps a lack of good fit in attempts to integrate attention to historical discursive formations with concern for what is specific to documentary as a signifying culture. A discursive history, as it might be seen to develop out of Michael Foucault's work, would be concerned with assessing the regularities and boundaries of a text or a cultural practice. Although Nichols discusses historical issues of truth and economy and speculates on the way "the Other becomes the precondition for the imaginary assurances of sublime independence", his characterisation of the women as the object of male desire here bears the mark of formal rather than an historical distinction, since it invokes the conception of a position for "the Other" that is wide-ranging from the actual conditions of documentary, pornography, ethnography and the discourses of power (p.202). This argument articulates a commonplace concern in cultural studies for the specificity of documentary. Nichols is, of course, concerned with form and Foucault's History of Sexuality, but while thus, he is not writing a Foucaldian history. However, this does signal a more general problem in histories that extend a concern for formal specificity to elaborate more discussion of discourses, rather than just focusing on the discourses of power.

'The Other' in the Documentary

If Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary moves in the direction of the discourses of general field rather than of power field, it also intervenes in recent debates about documentary's representing reality in cultural studies, particularly those concerning the relationship between representing the reality in documentary and cultural history. Part of Nichol's intervention lies in the care with which he negotiates this relationship; and he is appropriately confident regarding the methodology of his study. Citing Craig Owens on the concept of narrative which calls for interrogation, the poststructural critique thought including Marx, Freud and Nietzsche, Nichols notes his own concern to avoid such theories. He points to four different problems of the representation of "the Other" in relation to fiction in documentary, arguing instead for a consideration of its various functions. He also rejects an approach based among Laura Mulvey's definition that women "are to-be-looked-at; they are objects of desire and spectacle": “the camera represents male characters looking at female ones while female characters are the subjects of such views rather than their instigators” (Mulvey, cited in Nichols, 1991:207).

While Nichol's incorporates certain arguments about realism writing in cultural studies, he also avoids the excesses of those arguments. He offered experienced arguments regarding the way of representation of reality in documentary function in each cultural field, and refrains from making rash claims concerning the political implication of the texts disrupted by contradictions. Hollywood filmmakers, he notes, use a different way to avoid such problems by incorporating sophisticated new methods: “they, [Hollywood filmmakers] try to do it the other way around and move “inside” the rhythms and values of another culture in a more holistic way than simply as “local colour” or descriptive passage” (p.206).

In this regard, Nichols appears to take up criticisms by Michael Renov of the work of the Griersonian model “in which the corporeal I who speaks dissolves itself into a disembodied, depersonalized, institutional discourse of power and knowledge” (Renov, 1993:6). However Stella Bruzzi is a primary advocate of Nichol's definition, suggesting that the criticism of Noël Carroll is failure: “it is perhaps more generous and worth while to simply accept that a documentary can never be the real world, that the camera can never capture life as it would have unravelled had it not interfered” (Bruzzi, 2000:7). While he describes his own project as a theoretical one, and does not argue, as does Carroll that the first steps towards alternative realism imagery would lie in the field of basic values, such as representation of the events that relates to the historical connotation of the image and the relationship of its meaning with the soundtrack. In a very simple way it can related to all components of cultural interests, linked with gender, sex and "the Other" as a concept brought by Nichols.

Nichols has clearly taken Carroll's critique into consideration: he includes large number of examples in his discussion, and is concerned to cover all the problems ranging of historical context until he clarifies Graig's case against the narrative project of global explanation. Slavoj Žižek is taking a cue from Bill Nichols theory, when criticising Caroll's argument. For him representing reality reminds us that real theory can show how documentary exposes the fragility of subjectivity and our failure to grasp the whole picture of reality (Žižek, 2001:97). Furthermore Nichols' theory is supported and advocated by Renov noting in his book The Subject of Documentary that “contingency, hybridity, knowledge as situated and particular, identity as ascribed and performed seem out of phase with the quest for standards of subjectivity ... to which Caroll desperately clings” (Renov, 2004:137). At the same time his analysis show issues of representation in pornography to be different from that in documentary:

“in documentary this impression of reality extends to the actual course of events; the actions, worlds and gestures; that states of mind of participants, and the outcome of resolution represented. In ethnography and pornography, concreteness centers on the evidence that the cultural or sexual practices represented occurred as depicted” (p.216).

So Nichol's argument lead to that he analyses representing reality as the place where documentaries representational project can be problematical. In Deep Throat, for example, he notes that the "testimony to pleasure occurs in the visible proof of ejaculation" (p.217). Furthermore, he sees this problem when comparing both two films Deep Throat and Insatiable II "with Marylin Chamber"s whole body shuddering with pleasure', contradicted by the character's subjective experience, about embodiment versus the appearance/performance of embodied pleasure, which foregrounds the way social conditions have produced her as deviant.

The Body in Another Context

The final chapter is concerned with the body, questions of meaning and magnitude, covering films such as Sophie's Choice, The Pawnbroker, The Holocaust, Playing for Time, War and Remembrance, Robocop, The Terminator, Max Headroom and Bladerunner. Once again the body for Nichols is "the battle site of contending values and their representation" but the analysis and the sheer volume of material discussed means that references are provocative but lack detailed exploration due to the brevity of analysis (p. 238). Chapters follow on narrative in documentary, history of documentary, myth in documentary, sacrifice and the body, negative space, counternarrative, antimyth, self-referentiality and crisis and magnitude. The course between history and narrative or documentary texts that Nichols negotiates is a rocky road in documentary theory and cultural studies. Nichols intervenes in this debate by involving documentary texts and the historical domain in a historical project. He achieves this by using a range of individual scenes from Hospital, Primary, Lorang's Way, Salesman and television shows like “Cops” combined with different theoretical frameworks such as performance of people (social actors), testimony, formalism, post-structuralism, deconstruction, antimyth and representation to establish his agendas for documentary representation and the historical world. Moreover he makes a general argument for a flexible methodological approach, given that "unlikely historical fiction, documentary lacks the problem of finding itself with a body too many, namely that an actor" (p. 249), and stresses the value of not limiting his project to a single theoretical vantage point.

The heart of Nichol's study lies in his selected documentary-film analysis and his concern with documentary form: his integration of history and theory is affected predominantly by pushing a formalist historical analysis of documentary in the direction of culturally and theoretically informed interpretations. In this regard, it is useful to locate Nichol's study within the debate that has surrounded the analyses and histories of Diane Scheinman, particularly since this debate has established certain terms for thinking about this "discursive practice penetrated by relations of power" (Scheinman, 1998:201). As Nichols says “documentary texts recruit people but they continue to be historical figures functioning as members of a social activity” (p. 249), makes it clear that history and theory is neither new nor is it one debate. It also allows from this point of view that documentary criticism and documentary theory is and continues to be, diverse and only partly scientific. To make a clear connection to this fact, let's borrow Lukács's argument "real knowledge of what goes on in society" (Lukács, 1968:15).

Poetic documentary or maybe other related forms of documentary to poetics may be able to offer mythic identification and narrative characterisation attached to historical people or there always will be a need to draw on the other knowledge that is related to cultural studies and cultural knowledge. In particular for Nichols “this very process of mythologization works in two directions, transforming the dead into the eternally remembered and taking from the living something of their historical specificity” (p. 254). To understand Nichols' aim on this issue, one has to have resource to Louis Althusser empirical theory, where he says: “the act of abstraction whereby the pure essence is extracted from concrete individuals is an ideological myth” (Althusser, 1969:191). So, from critiques of nineteenth century philosophies of history to the connection between Nichols and Althusser can be another subject of much argument.

However, as it has recently been mentioned within documentary theorists, and more particularly in other film critic's work, a key issue is conceptual domain of bodily representation that Nichols has been concerned with: "into a literal embodiment of social practices and cultural ideals" (p. 255). Nichols' book is to integrate important facts with interpretation and with a notion of the historical figure indebted to history of documentary there remains a question regarding the factuality between theorist analysis and other work on this field. For example, in relation to documentary-filmmakers, would the theory of the historical figure need a consistent theory of the subject of the documentary? It has been argued that there is a disproportion between the techniques of documentary makers and theory that has been used to describe it. This leads to the general issue of Nichols' use of theory. He correctly notes that each theoretical example foregrounds different issues and ways of approaching the arguments of a documentary text.

Nichols's analysis does not deal with the broader implications of some questions he explicitly raises. His analysis is also limited by his failure to ask certain questions in the first place. This is especially clear in relation to the category of docu-soap, home movies or documentary gender and representation of personal life for public sphere in reality TV documentary. I was unclear as to whether he was using "variations of a single person" to refer to the characters of Colonel Mandrake, President Muffley, and Dr. Strangelove. This becomes problematic in his argument about "home movies" (p. 160). On the one hand he refers to "the recognition of a historical specificity", but on the other Nichols is categorically clear that “what is one person's historical evidence is another person's fiction” (p. 161). However it is clear and perfect theory on neorealism and documentary. Neorealism as a way of understanding the function and effect of travelogues and new reports discourses in general of the beginning of the cinema goes to the final development in Nichols's theory: “the emphasis in neorealism remains with story more than argument, with fictional representation more than historical one, with imaginary characters more than social actors” (p. 169).

Conclusion

In summary, the strength of Nichols's work is also his weakness: that is the ease with which he is confident and professionally able to converse with his subjects. He has a much firmer grasp of the history of the representing reality in the documentary he is delivering for his readers, and of what is at stake for the theory of documentary today as a whole than do other theorists and scholars. Despite the criticisms, I think Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary is an important and interesting text. Not only does it provide huge information and critiques of previous understandings of the relation between history and film-documentary, but it also constitutes a positive and useful way of documentary modes of representation. Also Nichols addresses clear arguments about the relations of documentary within history and its subjects and gives understandable direction for the future of rethinking those relations.

Based on the best seller of the same title, which was authored by two of the most prolific reporters of Fortune, Peter Elkind and Bethany McLean, the documentary analyzes carefully the downfall of the Enron Corporation, the Texas energy corporation that was used to be the seventh largest in the country and described by seasoned producer and director Gibney as a “house of cards built over a pool of gasoline.”

Opening with the suicide of Cliff Baxter in January 2002, one of the corporation's executive, the film, as a careful scrutiny of real-time corruption in the business world gone horribly wrong, gave us a close look at an immoral and profit-oriented corporate culture and the problems that come along with it.

The movie held out two important factors in the company's collapse. The first is the implementation of "mark-to-market" accounting, a policy used by Enron's accountants (who by the way belong to the likewise collapsed Chicago-based Arthur Andersen accounting firm) to declare gains that never existed on the basis of the transactions that were supposed to generate them eventually.

Secondarily, it was the creation of numerous mythical companies by Enron Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow to hide all their losses from the scrutiny of investors.

Though the topic at hand may be difficult to comprehend for some, Gibney made it quite easy to be understood by most people, and even entertaining, such that it was still a story of greed, pride, and arrogance as much as it was a corporate scandal.

Various "new documentary" practices of rock music, sudden cuts, professional graphics, and pop-culture references like "The Simpsons" and "It's a Wonderful Life" for better narration; a treasure chest of footages at Gibney's disposal, including news footages, e-mails, phone conversations, and interviews; and the charisma and understanding of the whistle-blower and other reliable sources close enough to the individuals at the forefront of this scandal made the documentary meaty and substantial.

At the eye of this corporate storm are two astounding characters: Enron President and Chief Operating Officer Jeff Skilling (brother of the legendary WGN-Ch. 9 meteorologist Tom Skilling) and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ken Lay, the man nicknamed "Kenny Boy" by his bosom friend and political beneficiary, President George W. Bush.

While it was appalling enough to know that there was a complete absence of corporate moral fiber at the core of the company, it was even more disgusting to realize that this company has anything to do with the Clinton and Bush administrations (with more emphasis on the latter), both on a personal and professional level.

On a personal note, it was mentioned that Lay and Bush are buddies, such that Enron was the largest corporate contributor to George W. Bush's re-election campaign, with contributions of around US$ 57 million to political figures and three-fourths going to the Republican Party and Bush's presidential campaign. It came as no surprise then that the president kept mum about this issue.

On the other hand, Congressman Phil Gramm, believed to be the second largest receiver of campaign contributions, succeeded in passing a law on California's energy commodity trading deregulation in December 2000. This was done regardless of warnings from well-known consumer groups which asserted that this law would give energy traders like Enron too much power over energy commodity prices.

As reported by Public Citizen, "Because of Enron's new, unregulated power auction, the company's "Wholesale Services" revenues quadrupled - from $12 billion in the first quarter of 2000 to $48.4 billion in the first quarter of 2001."

Knowledge that Enron created the phony California energy crisis on purpose will surely anger anyone for there was never a shortage of power in California until the deregulation was started by an alleged Enron cohort. Using audio recordings of Enron traders on the phone with California power plants, we overheard them asking plant managers to "get a little creative" in shutting down plants for "repairs." Approximately 30-50 percent of California's energy industry was shut down by Enron for days on end, and up to 76 percent at one point, as the company pushed the price of electricity nine times higher than the usual.

Before the passage of the deregulation law, there had been only one so-called Stage 3 rolling blackout. However, following the passage, California residents experienced a total of 38 blackouts defined as Stage 3 rolling blackouts until federal regulators intervened in June 2001. These blackouts occurred largely as a result of the manipulation by traders and marketers as shown in the film. By holding back energy and shutting down generators, chaos broke in the market and energy prices soared higher on the west coast. Enron executives were in the middle of it all.

In terms of corporations, because of the Enron phenomenon, corporate collapses and scandals quickly extended beyond the company and all those previously associated with it. The indictment of Arthur Andersen on charges of obstruction of justice related to Enron for instance, helped in the exposé of accounting fraud at WorldCom. The ensuing bankruptcy of that telecommunications company started a wild fire of other accounting scandals, exposing high-level corruption, gleaming accounting errors, and insider trading. Though at the time of its collapse, Enron was the largest bankruptcy in history, this has been surpassed by the fallout of WorldCom.

In the film, we heard Enron insider traders make fun of "Grandma Millie," an imaginary victim of the rolling blackouts, and boast about the millions they made for the company. As the company became bigger though, 20,000 employees were fired. Their pensions were gone, their stock virtually worthless. Sadly, it was the ordinary people who were victimized. For example, a power company lineman in Portland, who did his job all his life, noticed that his retirement fund was worth $248,000 before Enron bought the utility and stole it, investing its retirement funds in Enron stock. Now, all that was left to him is about $1,200.

Perhaps , because for many Americans, the Enron scandal came in a series of fragmented pieces-an expose and prosecution here, an interview there, such that the totality of the scandal and its repercussions for the future of capitalism have simply been hazy until this film, there has not been much clamor over the Enron scandals. The cost was immeasurable though, not only in terms of lives lost during the power crisis, but in state finances. California sued for $6 billion in refunds for energy overcharges collected during the phony crisis.

The resulting crisis also contributed to Arnold Schwarzenegger's sudden rise to power as California governor when Gray Davis was voted out of office by angry and financially-affected citizens in a recall election.

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is more than just a corporate scandal. It is the story of a government, several corporations, and our people.

All through time, there had been a lot of misconceptions regarding the motives behind his death. It is in the History Channel's release that for concerned politicians and common citizens alike - the real story could be made out. Our love for Abe Lincoln is sufficed. - And it is not only because of this that “The Lincoln Assassination” remains a worthy educational/entertainment source. - “The Lincoln Assassination” also gives pleasure to the regular student film-seer as much as it is food for history experts.

First, the production of “The Lincoln Assassination” is superior in quality. This is best seen by the film's cinematography, which takes the viewers back through time during the moments when Abraham Lincoln lived, and died. The first video of the two began by introducing the characters that took part, including of which is none other than Lincoln's assassin, John Wilkes Booth.

The dramatization elements gave us a glimpse of the thoughts and emotions of the people revolving around Lincoln and involved in the assassination. The film makers' perspective given upon the assassin colored the documentary as not all are aware that Booth was a stage actor after all and that he was not at all insane - one important hypothesis that the film ruled out as sufficient reason to kill the President. The plotting of the documentary is simply awe dropping.

The first film demonstrated Booth's agenda in relation to the release of Confederate prisoners, and culminated the moment he pulled the trigger pointing at the President. The second part of the 2-volume production was not given to sheer credits and such "extras." In fact, this is where the action is; this is where the program reached climaxed giving more than what the viewers expected.

It gave out the information that everyone is thirsting for - the central message of “The Lincoln Assassination” - the sharing of the drama behind the President's death - the knowing interpretation of the event's real (most probable) cause and what happened next to the culprits. The documentary's director simply lets us realize and feel that the Lincoln assassination is a real and serious event in history, and that it needs further scrutiny. The Lincoln assassination could not remain as a mere legend in history, happening over a century since.

Presidential assassinations are one of great concern to the country and it is by this reason that the documentary catches viewers' attention by sharing the needed information about the death of "Our Abe," and possibly - to expose other (and prospective) assassinations.

To add, the documentary is not only informative - it is dramatic. The dramatic mood of the film is supported by actual materials used in the documentary, which could not at all be called mere props. There were real letters sent to threaten the President, knife used by conspirator, and photographs of the persons involved. Even among the characters are the real descendants of the president's assassin and conspirator. These true-to-life relics had the power to move anyone. The documentary is so rich in detail that not one could pass not seeing it.

Compared to fictional movies basing on real historical events, “The Lincoln Assassination's credibility lies on the fact that it is supported by the brains of forensic experts and practiced historians; unlike history-based movies, the documentary does not have inaccuracies in information. And compared to books, “The Lincoln Assassination” delved into the sentiments of the characters as well - the raging character of Booth, the President's felt tumult about his own death, the nation's mourning.

On the low side, the 2-part program could be dragging. The sounds, or lack of sound, could drowse at some points, specifically on the interviews/commentary parts, but overall, the information that the film served readily is enough to keep our eyes open and our minds rampaging as the documentary gives light and justice to President Lincoln's death.