"State Fair" (1962)

Music is better--better singers (Bobby Darin, Pat Boone), songs seem better somehow, better use of music in the background, maybe music recorded better, too.

Not sure that I liked the story better, though.  Of the subtle differences in story, I think I prefer the 1945 version overall.  Okay, maybe 1 or 2 story changes I liked better in this version.  Still I think I'd take the 1945 story with the 1962 music.  This might be an interesting movie to look at as a crossover/clash of 50s values (which win out) and the 60s values to come (which do flavor the show some).  I may be reading in some of the 60s bit--reading in something that isn't there.  But, it isn't just a modernization of the 1945 version.  There is something a little bit different about it--something besides the singing--and that's what I think it is.  It's trying to cross over into the 60s, but isn't ready to leave the 50s yet.

My recommendation, watch for the music--and if you like looking at those early race cars.

"The Real Story: Indiana Jones" (2009)

Let's get this out of the way:  Music is pretty non-descript.  "Let's think of Indiana Jones movies without really using that music and just kind of hover there in the background."  In other words, it works.

Settled.

Now...

You know that disclaimer at the end of movies about how any correlation between the movie and any real person, place, thing, historical event, or garden carrot is purely coincidental?  This episode pretty much said, "Yeah, let's ignore that and look anyway."  

It asks the question, "Was there a real life Indiana Jones?" and tries to tie the proposed historical figures into a "SEE!  SEE!  Here's the inspiration for the movie character. Uh-huh. Uh-huh," mystery speculation (which fails to feel like any kind of  'mysterious debate'  fuel to me--sorry).  Two propositions.  The first was interesting enough.  The second was depressing--which was why, I suppose, they started with the other one first, so you would keep watching.  Makes sense.

Then I was mulling over the theory of "There's only really one story," otherwise known as "There's nothing new under the sun."  This presents the question:  "Does it matter whether it is one story or two?"  And I don't mean that as in "Who cares?"  I mean that in, "What is the impact of that answer?"  

I think I may have just stubbed my toe on the corner of a literary debate/theory outcropping in my living room.

If you're looking for something short, just to fill the time, then this episode isn't too bad.  This documentary does cut out all of the false suspense building.  Thank you.  Yet at the same time it is unsatisfying.  

That's rather misleading.  That makes it sound like it's a bad thing, but I don't think it is.  It's unsatisfying because now I want to watch a biography documentary of the first person, one that does a more thorough job than this show did.  And I want to watch a team or group of people go back and do a more thorough exploration of that cave in the second story.  So, I think it's a good unsatisfying.  I just don't have the time to follow up either desire right now.  And highly doubt either exists.

So, much for satisfaction.

"Secrets: A Viking Map?" (2013)

The sound was a little better--still dramatic--but not as bad as some of the other documentaries.  This documentary is not questioning the arrival of the Vikings to America.  It is looking at the authenticity of an artifact known as the Vinland map.  A good introduction to this particular artifact.  This documentary is also a good introduction into looking at why anything is produced--Why is this document written?  Why is this essay written?  Why is this news article written?  Why is this product on the market?--Or in the case of this documentary, Why is this map produced?  Does a nice balanced job of presenting the ambiguousness of historical research.

"Secrets: The Sphinx" (2013)

This is what you get when you try to make archaeology as exciting as the Super Bowl.  Good Grief!  And the music has "got" to be straight out of an opera's mass choir "crowd goes to war" scenes.  

Wouldn't it be easier just to play an operatic quartet  number during each 4th down of a football game, and then during the final two minutes of the 4th quarter say "Yeah, we still don't really know anything about the Sphinx."?  The effect would be the same.  All that was missing was for one archaeologist to tackle another one.

Or we could just teach the whole stadium to sing, "O Fortuna".  That would work, too.

Perhaps if I took a class on the history of the documentary, maybe that would enlighten why these choices are made.  Otherwise:  For the "adrenaline junky", it's not going to cut it.  For the scholar, it seems to me more annoying than anything.  And as for pop-scholarism?  Let's commit and do it, instead just commercializing our egos.

I will say I recognize the mentioned "hey we found this tomb" tomb in this documentary as the tomb that held one of the "we're going to open this" spots from "Into the Great Pyramid" .  And the guy talking about that spot (Director of Giza.....) was also in the other one, too.