Looking for information on a documentary about the "Other Graham Greene"?

Question

I saw it years ago but can't find how to get a copy. Its starts as a documentary on Graham Greene but the jounalist ends up looking for the "other" Graham Greene - apparantly a con man living off people by pretending to be GG. The twist at the end is brilliant.

Answer 1

After being made, The Other Graham Greene should have stayed in the vaults. In what was an otherwise distinguished weekend of tributes to mark the centenary of Greene’s birth, this laughably spoofish 1989 documentary had all the sophisticated cack- handedness of a public schoolboy’s jape. It located a bunch of “ other” Graham Greenes – variously a solicitor, a plumber, an MoD physicist, and an electrical technician. But sparks were in very short supply. What followed was turgid. Dullest of all was the so-called double: the man in grey who allegedly cruised around the globe misusing Greene’s name, fooling dumb ( but flattered) expatriates ( here played by actors) into giving him bed and board, on the strength of his being the famous scribbler.
http://www.lycos.com/info/graham-greene--berkhamsted-school.html

Showing to mark the centenary of the birth of Graham Greene, Frederick Baker's new Arena film looks at the context and making of The Third Man, the 1949 Greene screenplay, directed by Carol Reed, starring Orson Welles and voted the best British film of the 20th century in a 2000 BFI poll.
Following Baker's film, there is a chance to see the 1987 Arena documentary, made with Greene's co-operation, about a man calling himself Graham Greene, who convinced people around the world that he was the real author.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20041001/ai_n12106309

http://www.nmpft.org.uk/film/filmdiarypdfs/sept04.pdf

Best I could do on the search engine. You might try documentary sites, or British documentary with this info.

Answer 2

I've seen biographical information that was obvious vandalism (that is, someone clearly just wrote in a libelous line somewhere in the article), but I haven't really seen information integrated into the article that was false. But remember, that's not what's important. Clearly false information isn't going to stay in an article for long. WHat's more concerning at Wikipedia is ATTRIBUTION. That is, it's not about whether information is right or wrong, but whether there is a reliable source to back it up. Because if there's no source, even if the information is probably true, you can bet it won't be in the article for long. That's what a lot of people overlook. WIkipedia isn't just a compilation of random facts and ideas people have, lumped together in a messy pile on a website (that's what Yahoo! Answers is). Citations are a very important part of Wikipeda. If information isn't cited, it shouldn't be in the article.