The status of fact and objectivity in “Jerusalem, the Movie and History” and its perspective

After watching the documentary by National Geographic “Jerusalem, the Movie and History” the documentary, in my opinion, attempts to end with a positive outlook on the divisions within the old city of Jerusalem. In their attempt to push the positive perspective, it should be noted that often, when attempting to lead to an emotional narrative at the end of a work, especially one of a documentary like this one, the status of fact and objectivity must be considered. For example, the excerpt History Today states that when talking about “The problem of Objectivity”, “The trick, then is to construct our interpretations responsibly, with care, and with a high degree of self-consciousness about our disabilities and the disabilities of our sources.” (Howell and Prevenier 2001, 146). The ending of the documentary on a positive note, takes away from the history that has defined Jerusalem as a city that has been conquered over forty times with an exchanging of powers of history as well as clear cultural differences between the quarters. Now, with that being said, I am not stating that the idea of pushing for a positive outlook on the separation of the old city is a bad thing. I believe that the documentary could have highlighted more on what makes these divisions so difficult such that these three girls within the documentary have been raised with the ideas and norms that they see each side as so vastly different (understandably however the city has had a tumultuous history with battles that have shaped the cultures and actions of each of the quarters.) Moving forward to the status of fact, the documentary does mention the area of outcast bedrock that the three main religions have taken up as their most holy places. In the History Today excerpt they state “ It is to acknowledge, more humbly, that sources are all we have - and to insist that we can learn something by reading them carefully.  (Howell and Prevenier 2001, 147) The sources mentioned within the documentary about the holy stone are supported by biblical texts, but these texts unlike the graffiti mentioned about the place of Christ’s crucifixion could be interpreted as beliefs that these people had or to fathom natural events that they could not understand at the time. All in all, the documentary does its job to provide a well-thought-out and informative piece of art to the city of Jerusalem. However, it is important to remember the sources mentioned within the documentary and their validity as well as the narrative being pushed by the documentarians concerning objectivity.