rosanegraflamenco

The content is of course fascinating and overall the documentary is fine but the re-enacted parts leave a lot to be desired, with stilted, leaden acting, especially, in the lead role. Possibly this was a directing problem? Or perhaps McKay feels overly reverential towards his subject? Or perhaps the History Channel does? I don't know. But with each line ploddingly measured, and with facial expressions also delivered in seeming slow motion to the exclusion of anything like spontaneity, this viewer was relieved each time the film returned to the much more dynamic documentary footage, interviews and VO. There is a similar problem with History Channel's Washington where there's even a line about his being more of a monument than a person, so perhaps this turning of these huge figures into lifeless icons, comes from higher up at the channel itself?