Running "The War" Thread

[Fenian_Bastard]

Ken Burns's latest debuts tonight on PBS.
Just wanted to be the one that started this.

 

[Beaker]

I've been impressed with the reviews/interviews I've read so far. I'm hoping his bottom-up approach to telling the story works as well as it should. Although I wouldn't mind if he featured a few historians on there. Paul Fussel is interviewed, but just as a former soldier, not as a scholar.

Plus, one of the four towns used is Waterbury, which isn't too far from me.

 

[Football_Bat]

I've got it set for season pass on my TiVo.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

You sure it isn't WWII Prime Ticket?

 

[buckweaver]

You sure it isn't WWII Prime Ticket?

I think that's only available in L.A.

Oh, and I've got this thing set for the season on DVR, too. Can. Not. Wait.

 

[JackyJackBN]

Heard parts of a long Bob Costas interview of Burns last night. He added in Hispanics to those telling their stories when he was criticized for that omission; he said the original participation was completely voluntary, and that no Hispanics stepped forward. After the critics spoke up his team went looking for people to round out the mix. (If I remember correctly, they show up in parts One and Six.) Burns also commented that Hispanics are a much greater percentage of the U.S. population today than they were during WWII.

Burns also had a response to those who said it was too USA-centric: 'that was by design, everyone at Cannes understood that direction on his part'.

Let's see how this series is. I had thought I might like to see the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in KC; Burns convinced me I had to go. He has set a strong standard for himself.

 

[typewriterhill]

...people complaining about too USA-centric are morons.

What do they expect the story to be about if its about American soldiers?

 

[buckweaver]

I had thought I might like to see the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in KC; Burns convinced me I had to go. He has set a strong standard for himself.

Don't forget the Jazz and Jack Johnson series. Both of those were underrated classics.

 

[JackyJackBN]

...people complaining about too USA-centric are morons.

What do they expect the story to be about if its about American soldiers?

Alessandra Stanley, NYT's TV critic:

"The tone and look of Mr. Burns's series, which begins Sunday on PBS, is as elegiac and compelling as any of his previous works, but particularly now, as the conflict in Iraq unravels, this degree of insularity--at such length and detail--is disconcerting. Many a "Frontline" documentary has made a convincing case that the Bush administration's mistakes were compounded by the blinkered thinking of leaders who rushed to war without sufficient support around the world or understanding of the religious and sectarian strains on the ground. Examining a global war from the perspective of only one belligerent is rarely a good idea."

Insularity is the argument.

 

[JackyJackBN]

I don't think Ken Burns is a Bush fan. (In fact, he told Costas that his politics are liberal. Costas began slobbering on him and I kind of lost track of the rest of that part of the discussion. Something to do with 'liberal in the original sense, blah, blah, blah'; Burns was making his point just fine without Costas qualifying his statement.) Her argument is a reach to make a point, I think. Stanley's too intelligent to have missed the thrust of the series.

 

[heyabbott]

...people complaining about too USA-centric are morons.

What do they expect the story to be about if its about American soldiers?

Alessandra Stanley, NYT's TV critic:

"The tone and look of Mr. Burns's series, which begins Sunday on PBS, is as elegiac and compelling as any of his previous works, but particularly now, as the conflict in Iraq unravels, this degree of insularity--at such length and detail--is disconcerting. Many a "Frontline" documentary has made a convincing case that the Bush administration's mistakes were compounded by the blinkered thinking of leaders who rushed to war without sufficient support around the world or understanding of the religious and sectarian strains on the ground. Examining a global war from the perspective of only one belligerent is rarely a good idea."

Insularity is the argument.

Wow. I disagree with her on so many levels.

But I'll wait to see the series ...

It's not as if WWII hasn't been covered before.

The World at War series is the best

 

[buckweaver]

It's not as if WWII hasn't been covered before.

The World at War series is the best

Well, sure.

Doesn't mean that we're in some dire need to "examine a global war," the last world war, from the perspective "of [more than] one belligerent."

There are many ways to cover it -- Burns' way, I would argue, has been pretty effective on other subjects. He's earned the benefit of the doubt for this one, I would think.

 

[JR]

Damn.

Missed the first hour. Just catching up.

And I know I'll get **** upon for this but the proper title would be "The American War"

 

[JackyJackBN]

Damn.

Missed the first hour. Just catching up.

And I know I'll get **** upon for this but the proper title would be "The American War"

Hmmm. I hadn't thought about the title. Your title, I think, would leave most of the intended audience thinking, "Huh?" How about adding your suggestion as a subtitle...

 

[Boom_70]

Watching Batan makes me want to go out and smash a Camry

 

[Point of Order]

...people complaining about too USA-centric are morons.

What do they expect the story to be about if its about American soldiers?

Alessandra Stanley, NYT's TV critic:

"The tone and look of Mr. Burns's series, which begins Sunday on PBS, is as elegiac and compelling as any of his previous works, but particularly now, as the conflict in Iraq unravels, this degree of insularity--at such length and detail--is disconcerting. Many a "Frontline" documentary has made a convincing case that the Bush administration's mistakes were compounded by the blinkered thinking of leaders who rushed to war without sufficient support around the world or understanding of the religious and sectarian strains on the ground. Examining a global war from the perspective of only one belligerent is rarely a good idea."

Insularity is the argument.

Wow. I disagree with her on so many levels.

But I'll wait to see the series ...

I think I would probably disagree, too, but I can't decode whatever it is she's trying to say. Are there any elitist-NY Times-critic-to-English translators out there who can help me?

Also, I missed the first hour, but it looks like it's replaying again after that. Am I correct, or does the second showing a continuation? Any early reviews from the board?

 

[JR]

Damn.

Missed the first hour. Just catching up.

And I know I'll get **** upon for this but the proper title would be "The American War"

Hmmm. I hadn't thought about the title. Your title, I think, would leave most of the intended audience thinking, "Huh?" How about adding your suggestion as a subtitle...

Batan is to America what Hong Kong is to Canada and the UK

This program is strong powerful stuff, Boom's idiotic response notwithstanding.

 

[NoOneLikesUs]

I can see where this series will be invaluable to people unaware of the War. For those of us who have been down this road with other documentary films or books...it's hardly anything new.

I had to step away from the TV. I've almost fallen asleep several times...and the forced Latino part came on.

I'll probably watch the rest of the series sometime, but I was thoroughly underwhelmed with the opener. For anyone who thinks this will trump The Civil War or Baseball...they're crazy.

 

[JR]

I had an interruption so I'll miss the rest of tonight's episode.

Burns' style doesn't quite work with this one for some reason that escapes my small brain.

I'm not sure why, but I'll think about it.

 

[Boom_70]

I had an interruption so I'll miss the rest of tonight's episode.

Burns' style doesn't quite work with this one for some reason that escapes my small brain.

I'm not sure why, but I'll think about it.

It's too pro american for your taste.