write a short commentary of NO MORE THAN TWO PAGES, reacting section in the syllabus. Begin your essay with your research question (EXAMPLES: Why did the documentary come to the conclusion it did [and not another conclusion]?, Why did it not consider or emphasize another factor [x] that may have contributed to the process under study in the documentary? How did luck, planning, human behavior or other factors shape outcomes in the documentary and how might these factors be influenced by the policy?) You are expected to analyze/criticize the subject/substance of the documentary. DO NOT provide a summary. I already know what the documentaries are about. Tell me what they got wrong, could have done better, missed, failed to emphasize etc. Alternately, you are encouraged to relate the topic of the documentary to other questions/issues in international affairs. Focus on the politics/policy in each documentary. Are there errors? In what ways is the documentary misleading? What have you gleaned from the readings, for example, that could allow you to more critically assess the claims presented in the documentary? What policy implications are advanced by the documentary? Do you accept these? Why or why not? Do _not_ provide critiques of filmmaking. Be “punchy”, impactful. you can use the book attached

WATCH: “Putin’s Revenge” (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/putins-
revenge/) and/or “North Korea’s Deadly Dictator”
(https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/north-koreas-deadly-dictator/) and/or
“Bitter Rivals: Iran and Saudi Arabia”
(https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/bitter-rivals-iran-and-saudi-arabia/)