The War (Burns/Novick, 2007)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

#1 Post by bearcuborg » Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:47 pm

I just watched the first 2+ hours tonight on PBS HD and I thought it left a lot to be desired. I suspect that all we will see is The War from an American perspective. This feels odd considering that it was a World War involving so many more nations.

Some of the idyllic Ken Burns-esque Americana imagery used in The Civil War seems somewhat simple when the world can be so brutal and complicated.

http://www.pbs.org/thewar/
Last edited by bearcuborg on Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Macintosh
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:38 am
Location: New York City

#2 Post by Macintosh » Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:49 pm

Whoops!

We are unable to locate the page you've requested.

you need to break up that link, seperate the image from the http.

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

#3 Post by bearcuborg » Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:00 pm

^Thanks mac, I thought I could combine the two.

Did you watch The War tonight? What did you think?

User avatar
jesus the mexican boi
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:09 am
Location: South of the Capitol of Texas

#4 Post by jesus the mexican boi » Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:23 pm

I thought this piece said it all.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#5 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:31 pm

I pretty much dismissed watching anything with his stamp on it after seeing how he treated Fusion in his Jazz series.

User avatar
Belmondo
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:19 am
Location: Cape Cod

#6 Post by Belmondo » Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:31 pm

It is very much from an American perspective since Ken Burns chose four American towns as representative of the experience for the entire country. I thought tonights episode was excellent and offered something less often seen in war documentaries in that it is almost entirely told by the experiences of "regular people" and names like Roosevelt, Churchill, or any number of famous generals are not at all at the center of the story.

I got some new perspectives even though I have seen and read endlessly on this subject. I only caught one very minor mistake - the narrator says the Marines on Guadalcanal called the Japanese Navy the "Tokyo Express" because of their ability to bombard Guadalcanal at will. "Tokyo Express" was strictly a newspaper term for the folks at home. The Marines actually called it the "Cactus Express", which was the secret code name for Guadalcanal.

In any case, with the World War II generation leaving us at the rate of a thousand per day, this is a great tribute to them and very honest in dealing with the less noble aspects of America at that time.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#7 Post by domino harvey » Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:32 pm

I almost made this thread but then realized that Burns was likely not very popular around these parts.

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

#8 Post by bearcuborg » Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:03 am

^Ah, but you managed to post anyway. I guess you are in every thread domino...Did you like it?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#9 Post by domino harvey » Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:39 am

I'm waiting to catch it on DVD. I don't generally disparage Burns though, Unforgivable Blackness was tops.

User avatar
Hai2u
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:21 pm

#10 Post by Hai2u » Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:15 am

I like how it seems to end, then the 30 minute latin american section starts up. :lol:

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

#11 Post by bearcuborg » Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:40 am

^Yeah, that didn't feel tacked on at all, right? :^o

Domino, I suggest you rent The World at War instead...

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#12 Post by Matt » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:21 am

Hai2u wrote:I like how it seems to end, then the 30 minute latin american section starts up. :lol:
This was completely tacked on. Burns and Novick caved into pressure to include Latinos after the film was already made and edited. They didn't want to go back and recut the film, so they just stapled this part onto the end.

Nancy Franklin spells it all out in the New Yorker.

User avatar
ltfontaine
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm

#13 Post by ltfontaine » Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:46 pm

If Burns' projects weren't devised, titled, promoted and popularly received as definitive histories of their respective topics, it would matter less that his films, like all documentaries, are highly subjective, riddled with bias and omissions. Having spent years in the ‘70s and ‘80s promoting jazz for a living, I can't abide the way that Jazz shrugs off the post-Coltrane avant-garde. But if one takes it all with a grain of salt and resists the hype, Burns' films usually offer a good deal of information and some valuable footage. The first episode of The War, in this regard, holds true to form.

Richard--W
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:56 am
Location: on the border

#14 Post by Richard--W » Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:18 pm

Thank you for posting the two links above. I don't agree with either of the reviews. Belinda Acosta and Nancy Franklin need to grow up. I think the critics, and the Latinos in particular, demand too much from Ken Burns. 15 hours is not enough time to tell everything about the war from every point of view or from every ethnic point of view. The very nature of a documentary has limitations, and Burns is as expansive as he can be within the limitations of the form he's working in. Burns begins his documentary with the qualification that World War 2 is too complex for any single accounting. Why is that so hard to understand.

Books are the appropriate venue for more a comprehensive and detailed history. Although many histories delve deeper into individual aspects, battles, and campaigns, and deeper into the service of various regiments, countries, and races, again, World War 2 is too vast and complex a subject for any single book to cover thoroughly. That's why I have three well-organized bookcases devoted exclusively to the history of Word War 2, which includes over 1,000 books on the subject. Even with this personal library, collected over the course of fifty years, I still do not have a thorough and comprehensive history of World War 2.

I also own about two dozen documentaries about Word War 2 including three television series. Put them all together, they still do not add up to a thorough and comprehensive history. A lot of things are left out. But nobody criticizes previous documentaries for excluding something. Only Ken Burns gets criticized.

It is unrealistic to expect one documentary to serve every purpose. THE WAR is not the last word or the only word on World War 2, but it is an important and significant contribution. Look at what Ken Burns has done right and done well, and try to appreciate that. If the Latino groups want a documentary about their ethnic group, let them produce it themselves and write the book to go along with it. Not only will I watch it, but I would consider it essential to my library, and I'll spend the money to buy it. I will not condemn Latinos for excluding Lithuanians from their documentary.

It is unfair and somewhat ugly to single out Ken Burns for not fighting every battle for you.

Soothsayer
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:54 pm

#15 Post by Soothsayer » Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:27 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I pretty much dismissed watching anything with his stamp on it after seeing how he treated Fusion in his Jazz series.
QFE

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#16 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:35 pm

Soothsayer wrote:
flyonthewall2983 wrote:I pretty much dismissed watching anything with his stamp on it after seeing how he treated Fusion in his Jazz series.
QFE
?

User avatar
gubbelsj
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: San Diego

#17 Post by gubbelsj » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:41 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Soothsayer wrote:
flyonthewall2983 wrote:I pretty much dismissed watching anything with his stamp on it after seeing how he treated Fusion in his Jazz series.
QFE
?
QFE (from the Urban Dictionary)

An acronym for Quoted for Emphasis, often used to help drive a point home to someone who's fairly dimwitted. Also used when someone makes an exceedingly good point, and people want to make sure that it gets across. Usually seen used in internet forums.

.....................................................

Although I'd personally argue it was the avant-garde / free jazz wing that got trashed the worst in Burns' concluding episode.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#18 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:43 pm

Ah ok.

Soothsayer
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:54 pm

#19 Post by Soothsayer » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:49 pm

Yeah, sorry, just agreeing with what you were saying flyonthewall(I forget this board deserves more than simple netlingo replies from me) :D

And to find out that Wynton Marsalis did the score for "The War"...I swear the man couldn't have made jazz music seem more boring if he tried.

edit: And to reply to gubbelsj's post, honestly, I think Ken Burns sees avant/free jazz like Albert Ayler as pretty much the same thing as something like, let's say, Tony Williams...really(and the insulting tone, esp. using Wynton Marsalis as a mouthpiece for all the vitriol, pun intended).

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#20 Post by domino harvey » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:53 pm

Stanley Crouch is going to beat-up everyone in this thread.

User avatar
Belmondo
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:19 am
Location: Cape Cod

#21 Post by Belmondo » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:57 pm

When "The Civil War" first aired in 1990, it was universally praised by both critics and audiences. If "The War" had been the first major effort by Burns, I believe it would also be receiving universal praise. Now, we lament the lack of high quality television, but insist on taking shots when presented with something truly worth seeing.

Do we have some kind of subconscious need to show how jaded we are by taking an arguably minor flaw such as the lack of Latino perspective, and dismissing the entire series on that basis?

Too many critics and reviewers spend too much time scratching their head at the latest Burns triumph and saying to themselves, "gotta bring this guy down a peg, gotta write something with plenty of attitude and a new angle to show everyone how cool I AM."

This was not the attitude of the Greatest Generation which won World War II, and saved the world for several generations of sophisticated brats who couldn't find Guadalcanal on a map if their life depended on it. There was a time when many lives did depend on it.

The major problem facing the country is the complete polarization of "red state - blue state" political opinion which allows for no middle ground and no opportunity for consensus building. God help us if this polarization is now affecting history and the arts.

Chull
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:17 pm

#22 Post by Chull » Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:08 pm

"I don't agree with either of the reviews."

Indeed. "Criticizing" something for what it isn't is too easy. Useless, even. So a fifteen hour documentary doesn't tell the whole story - big fucking surprise! Personally, as a loose overview, I find it fairly informative. Especially the Japan-American side (I've only recently started to take an interest in that, over the European side.) I can't imagine Burns' aim was at the "buffs", and I think this gives more info than the average person possesses. I also keep thinking that if this had been used in history class when I was in school, it may have sparked in interest in history a lot earlier in my life. (Instead of using the rather large text book as a pillow in class - a lot less painful than reading the dry-as-sand text.) If people are too dumb to use a single source as their only basis of information, that's hardly a flaw of Burns'. As for him being the caretaker of American culture and promoted as such, I guess I miss out on that. Perhaps because I'm Canadian? In fact I only found out about this project because I noticed the listing on DVDPlanet, and thedigitalbits mentioned a broadcast time.

In any case I really enjoyed the first segment. What I would agree with, however, is that Burns does seem to be a bit unfocused when it comes to the idea of telling it through the stories of a few "townsfolk." As the New Yorker articles says, he doesn't stick with it particularly well (so far.) Which is fine, because I find it unnecessary.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#23 Post by tryavna » Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:13 pm

I've always thought that Ken Burns was at his best when focusing on significantly less sweeping topics. His docus on Lewis & Clark and Mark Twain are superb.

For some reason, his brother Ric seems to handle the sweeping topics even better. I much prefer Ric's New York docu to Ken's Civil War, Baseball, etc.

User avatar
Steven H
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: NC

#24 Post by Steven H » Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:18 pm

I still find new things to like about the Burns Mr. Show parody, but that's about the extent to which I have an interest in him after seeing some of his stuff (there's not supposed to be laughter during the Donner Party doc, right?)

User avatar
gubbelsj
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: San Diego

#25 Post by gubbelsj » Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:34 pm

Belmondo, you raise some excellent points, and there's no denying that Burns is both a talented storyteller and a gifted craftsman. And perhaps attacking Burns for telling only surface stories, or merely focusing on specific mainstream interpretations of events, ignores the fact that Burns, like Time magazine, functions more as a reflector of contemporary American tastes than as a trendsetter. However, what I've found most dismaying about the new series is how totally self-absorbed with America and only America Burns seems to be. Telling the story of World War II only through the eyes of Americans merely confirms the worst stereotypes of Yankees - that of cultural ignoramuses unable to see or interpret anything extending beyond their own borders. The Civil War, baseball, even jazz (although there's plenty of important non-American jazz musicians) can all be excused or even expected to be discussed in terms strictly relating to Americans. But the second world war? Can Burns even suggest this with a straight face?

What a great opportunity for this popular artist to make one small effort to educate Americans about the world existing outside. What an important time in history to attempt such an effort. And what a disappointingly small-minded result. It's a little ironic that the issue of leaving out Latino contributions received such press. While such an oversight isn't defensible, Latinos are far from the only group getting left out of this series.

Finally, perhaps some of my annoyances would have been allayed had Burns decided to entitle his latest offering in a way that suggests his America-only bias - "The American Front"? "America at War"? . But "The War" suggests an all-encompassing thud, a final American takeover of history. The War is US, we are The War. No other nations need apply, except to thank us for our generosity and sacrifice. I'm enough of a general fan of Burns and his contributions to rise to his defense once in a while, even when I disagree with his conclusions - regarding Jazz, I've got too many Cecil Taylor cds in my house to excuse Branford Fucking Marsalis denouncing him as "self-indulgent bullshit". But there's enough good entertainment and information in the preceding hours of interviews and historical footage for me to forgive it. But telling the story of WWII in a self-imposed American vacuum? It's just a little too much for me to stomach.

Post Reply