It's better to learn the way people lived in the past through films and video records than written documents. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The public confronts a moot issue in which learning history through videotape is more effective than reading inscribed sources. Watching visual medium about history have the potential to offer an array of merits no matter how detrimental aspects it demonstrates. Now, I will try my utmost to mull over the moot issue below for arriving at the conclusion in the end.

First

and foremost, a limited number of people feel reluctant to find any beneficial aspect of the moot issue. Albeit, there is an aspect which could not be ignored. Particularly, watching historical movies give us a more realistic feeling about how our ancestors lived and fight in order to build our current society. To put it another way, visual media about previous generations can give more strong lessons learned that need to consider in our life. From my point of view, it's one crucial aspect to learn about life in the past. Case in point, lively discussion based on the lessons learned occurred in our university class after the historic content named "Queen Anu" was released in 2016. As far as my own standpoint is enunciated in an advocative way, inscribed sources are not efficient and accessible to everyone like visual records. Books, diaries and handwritten notes take much time to review and understand the main content while movies deliver the main messages to a wide range of audiences just only for 1-2 hours. Having seen the status quo in Mongolia, communities tend to spend their money to buy tickets for historic digital records rather than books according to the speech of the owner of a bookstore. Once and for all, I would leap to a logical conclusion that historical movies or videotapes are able to provide more powerful messages to audiences while the extensive time required to take in the sense of written documents including letters and books.