_El hombre que quiso ser Segundo_ initially struck me as a splendid tribute and the perfect opportunity to reclaim the genius of Segundo de Chomón, an exceptional technician who, although frequently compared to Georges Méliès, refined many of his techniques and left a visual legacy that, in many ways, surpassed that of the Parisian master. For this, he undoubtedly deserves far greater recognition. As I delved into the documentary, I applauded it and considered it the best tribute ever made to Segundo, convinced that this project would redeem the Spanish filmmaker from the historical neglect he had suffered. However, I wanted to investigate further what was shown. And here began my disappointment. [spoiler]I decided to start by tracing a supposed historical photograph shown in the documentary, where Segundo de Chomón and Georges Méliès appeared together. The way Segundo was lit, with his shadows, didn’t match the rest of the photograph. Something felt off. Why? Because the photo was manipulated. In the original, Segundo wasn’t present. The most serious issue is that this image was used to support a narrative of reconciliation between the two filmmakers after World War I, a completely invented event.[/spoiler] [spoiler]This revelation opened a crack in the documentary’s credibility. Suddenly, I understood that the supposed twin brother, Primo de Chomón, was nothing more than a fictional character—an absurd invention created solely to introduce a mystery where there wasn’t one. Could I prove it? Yes, well, Primo de Chomón, the supposed twin brother of Segundo, has no trace on the Internet before the release of this documentary. I conducted exhaustive searches and, surprisingly, the only results that appeared about him are from after the documentary’s release, from 2014 onwards. There is no prior evidence of his existence in any academic source or archive, and "Primo de Chomón" had never been mentioned online before, which undermines the credibility of the entire work.[/spoiler] [spoiler]The most infuriating part is that they involved revered figures like Ray Harryhausen to lend credibility to this pile of falsehoods. Using the prestige of a genius to strengthen a narrative full of lies is insulting, not only to the viewers but to the memory of Chomón.[/spoiler] [spoiler]The fictionalization of facts in a biographical documentary like this adds no value; instead, it obscures the truth and sows unnecessary doubts. Peter Jackson achieved something similar with Forgotten Silver, creating the fictional filmmaker Colin McKenzie, but there it was clear that everything was a fable without tarnishing the life of a real historical figure. It’s concerning that lies are used to generate interest. Not only does it betray the audience’s trust, but it dishonors Chomón’s legacy, which doesn’t need false embellishments to be remembered.[/spoiler] [spoiler]Oh, and to conclude, the supposed director of the documentary, who appears speaking in the first person during the interviews, is not actually who he claims to be. Upon reviewing the credits, I discovered that this 'director' is actually an Italian actor named Enrico Vecchi, who acts in place of Ramón Alòs, the real director of the project. Is it necessary to even falsify the interviewer? Yes, if one doesn’t have the courage to show their face behind such deceit.[/spoiler]