Though historically accurate, this series lacks the narrative quality of "The Civil War": For one thing, I miss the music and also the narration (of David McCullough) which helped the earlier series keep the quality and consistency which held it together through nine episodes. Neither the music nor narration in "The War" is memorable, though surely better alternatives were available.
Another problem is with the material itself. In "The Civil War," Burns quoted freely from Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Walt Whitman and others, people who were great speakers and writers. But now, the material comes mainly from ordinary people, which gives it a movingly personal quality, though lacking in the wit and eloquence which so embellished "The Civil War."
I also miss the occasional narrators, people like Garrison Keillor, Morgan Freeman, Sam Waterston and Studs Terkel, who took turns speaking for war participants long dead, and the commentary by historians like Shelby Foote and Ed Bearss. Here, the story is largely confined to what the individuals knew about it, and told in their voices, a historiography of details and incidents. It is the historian's job to generalize, and Burns refuses to do so.
Another problem is with the material itself. In "The Civil War," Burns quoted freely from Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Walt Whitman and others, people who were great speakers and writers. But now, the material comes mainly from ordinary people, which gives it a movingly personal quality, though lacking in the wit and eloquence which so embellished "The Civil War."
I also miss the occasional narrators, people like Garrison Keillor, Morgan Freeman, Sam Waterston and Studs Terkel, who took turns speaking for war participants long dead, and the commentary by historians like Shelby Foote and Ed Bearss. Here, the story is largely confined to what the individuals knew about it, and told in their voices, a historiography of details and incidents. It is the historian's job to generalize, and Burns refuses to do so.
posted by:
|
Oregon
|
-
Re: "The War"
Tue, September 25, 2007 - 4:45 PMThanks for the review Forrest. I haven't watched any of these, as the American civil war isn't a big interest of mine (it should be; I have glorious family history there).
On the topic of nice narrations, I've just gone through the BBC documentary, "The Great War." Not the crappy recent ones; the 1964 ones, which were made when many of the participants were still alive; narrated by Michael Redgrave. While it isn't as exciting and doesn't have as much crazy footage as, say, the later "World at War" series about WW-2, it's quite worth the time if you are interested in this era. I was disappointed at how British oriented it was; to me, the most interesting parts of WW-1 took place in Africa, Russia (google around on the Czech anabasis), the Balkans and Italy -all of these were more or less overlooked. Still, the footage was amazing, and some of the perspectives were things that you probably never thought about. Favorite parts of both documentaries were the ordinary people talking about their experiences.
-
Re: "The War"
Tue, September 25, 2007 - 10:12 PMThe third episode includes some good information on the Italien campaign, not all of which was known to me, and a lot of details about the battle of Tarawa, which was already depressingly familiar. The sequence about the black struggle for their rights in the early 40s was somewhat spoiled when it was illustrated by a misplaced photo of the Los Angeles Zoot Suit Riots of 1943 (perhaps excusable, if one lumps the two subjects together under the heading of "racial tensions"). -
-
Re: "The War"
Wed, September 26, 2007 - 12:18 PMIn case "Zoot Suit Riots" doesn't ring any bells:
www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/zoot/eng_filmmore/
Not sure if the photo is from 1942 or 1943, when there were more riots. -
-
Re: "The War"
Wed, September 26, 2007 - 12:51 PMI'm enjoying it. I knew very little about the Africa and Italy theatres, so it was very informative.
-
-
-
Re: "The War"
Wed, September 26, 2007 - 11:00 PMFourth Episode: A pretty good depiction of D-Day and a very spotty one of Saipan. Burns has an irritating habit of mixing in extraneous footage: the Battle of Britain repeats itself in Normandy, Midway in the Marianas. There is a LOT of film footage from WW2 available, so this is hard to understand. Is this the same Ken Burns who did the "Civil War" series with only a hundred or so stills for each episode? -
-
Re: "The War"
Fri, September 28, 2007 - 6:38 AMI also miss the commentary of historians (professional and otherwise) that was so visible in *The Civil War* -- not so much Shelby Foote, who could be irritating and was overused, as "heavy hitters" like James McPherson and Barbara Fields (the latter provided a lot of the racial context of the era). Considering how much social history has been done on World War II -- of both the battle front and the home front -- why not give those people some credit and let them provide more of the context that illuminates the individual stories?
-
-
Re: "The War"
Fri, September 28, 2007 - 11:18 PMAs I studied a great deal re WWII as a kid, and only a little, here and there, since then (which was mostly political, consititutional, economic context), I have sort of welcomed this series. "Sort of," in that, I have looked forward to each episode, yet, for some of the reasons shared (such as the photos and film-footage used freely out of context) already here in this thread, I haven't learned that much at all, when, well, I should have.
I would have been far more interested if this series was going to be much longer, and less-American-centric. For example, "The War" barely -- BARELY, if at all -- touched upon the causes, currents, pathologies which led to it. Just think, they could have did a whole episode or even two on just the ideologies, trends, political conflicts? Say, not only have viewpoints of various Americans from across the country, but of various British, French, Russians, ....Germans, Italians, Japanese, along with various historians. Instead, I didn't really get a good sense (whcih I otherwise, more-or-less have, but there are still some serious questions out there) at all with the first episode, why it was a "necessary war," according to the title... -
-
Re: "The War"
Fri, September 28, 2007 - 11:51 PMIt was a "necessary war" for us because we were attacked . . . I certainly take your point, it was NOT a necessary war for the Germans. . . -
-
Re: "The War"
Sat, September 29, 2007 - 12:11 AMI'm not saying it was a necessary war (or not), only that "The War" really didn't get into the crunchy historical details enough, for me. I can't recall seeing any history touched upon, really, about why so many (even outside of government, in the public) figured that Japan may be attacking somewhere, and all of the history leading up to that. Of course, when attacked, war was necessary, but, oddly enough, it seemed necessary to the Japanese, too...Not many history films out there focusing on Japanese imperialism and militarism...
And, well, with the Germans, it was deemed necessary under a different mindset from ours, too, but necessary (or, perhaps, another value, such as right and noble, are more appropriate terms) to them, nonetheless...Focusing a lot more on this, these mindsets of Germany, would have been a great historical lesson for a series on "The War." Not much history films out there focusing on why so many people in Germany got behind national socialism... -
-
Re: "The War"
Sat, September 29, 2007 - 2:07 AM>>why so many people in Germany got behind national socialism . . .
As to that, there have been many theories concerning the militaristic character of German society, ingrained anti-Semitism, resentment of the Versailles treaty, etc., none of which explain why a fringe party which had only 800,000 supporters in 1928, suddenly had 17.3 in 1933 . . . essentially, a lot of things went wrong in Germany at the same time:
1. The Great Depression caused widespread dissatisfaction with the existing system.
2. By 1933, democracy had reached a virtual standstill, due to the multitude of feuding parties, none strong enough to rule: Legislation was replaced with emergency decrees.
3. Most Nazi supporters could have been regarded as protest voters, until the conservative parties made the error of lending them respectability by inviting them into the governing coalition. At that point, support for the Nazis was actually in decline.
4. Even that might not have been fatal, had the 86-year-old President Hindenberg been capable of governing the country. With his death, Hitler's power became absolute.
In addition, it must be said that, in 1933, most Germans had only a vague understanding of Nazism. Albert Speer: "Had Hitler announced, before 1933, that a few years later he would burn down Jewish synagogues, involve Germany in a war, and kill Jews and his political opponents, he would at one blow have lost me and probably most of the adherents he won after 1930." A lot of things which became crystal clear in 1945 were not at all obvious in 1933 . . .
Anyway, all that happened a long time before America became involved in the war, so I'm not surprised that Burns didn't go into it. -
-
Re: "The War"
Sat, September 29, 2007 - 9:44 AM(whcih I otherwise, more-or-less have, but there are still some serious questions out there)
-
-
-
-
-
Re: "The War"
Sun, September 30, 2007 - 10:23 PMFifth Episode: A sketchy description of Market Garden and a good one of Peleliu, together with very good accounts of the Lost Batallion and the Huertgen Forest. Burns has done well to document some battles which were of little strategic significance, but very important to the participants, which the documentaries usually skip over. We all know about the Bulge and Iwo Jima, but how many have heard about the Huertgen Forest and Peleliu?
-
Re: "The War"
Mon, October 1, 2007 - 10:07 PMEpisode Six: Burns treats us to a memorable 45 minutes on the Bulge, followed by snippets on the liberation of Manila, the bombing of Germany and Japan, and the battle of Iwo Jima. The Bulge was a key make-or-break battle, and worthy of attention, but the overall effect is uneven, like a heavy meal which is poorly digested and leaves one feeling uncomfortable rather than satisfied.
-
Re: "The War"
Tue, October 2, 2007 - 10:29 PMEpisode Seven: Okinawa, Holocaust, V-E Day, Hiroshima, V-J Day. The series ends with about half an hour on the post-war period, which does not address the big questions of what the war meant or how it changed the world, but shows us, as always, the little stories of ordinary Americans. We are left with a sense of gratitude to the war generation for their many sacrifices.
I am of two minds about this: If we only knew about the war from this one series, we would have only a very narrow and imperfect knowledge of it. However, we do not really know what the war meant until we understand what it meant to our ancestors, and Burns conveys this very well.
