What does "a qualified yes" mean? Is that to say that we have to take what filmmakers do with a grain of salt? If so, then I agree that a "qualified yes" is the answer to that question.

I think one should learn about black history from the history books and not take what we see on film as the truth (and one should sometimes question the history books).

Not everyone realizes that filmmakers use poetic license to make the film(s) more viewable. In essence, they may change history in a sense for the film's sake. Folks walk away from the film thinking one thing when in actuality, the truth is something different. I can't agree with that notion and feel that due to that practice, we can't always learn from films.

Sent by ernise | 3:46 PM ET | 02-06-2008

Per today's episode of Blogger's roundtable could you perhaps create a post to continue the discussion.
Thank you

Sent by ceecee | 4:44 PM ET | 02-06-2008

Your wish -- our command, CeeCee.

Sent by Geoffrey Bennett | 5:28 PM ET | 02-06-2008

I think the TV movie "Roots" still takes the cake even thirty years later. There are note-worthy movies before and after Roots as stated in the featured article but I've watched a few that I thought afterwards, "what was that all about?"

I don't fault any filmmaker for taking a creative license; when done right it could be ingenious. But don't take away the real essence of an african/african-american history movie.

Sent by Moji | 5:36 PM ET | 02-06-2008