Anyone watchin' THE WAR (PBS Rel)
kitchenknight
4,922 Posts
Dudes are dropping left and right in the Batan death march...oof.But, so far? Way too Amer-centric. Episode 1, and we sort of glossed over the whole invasion of most of Europe...no mention of the fall of France, maginot line, etc. No mention of Chamberlain trying to achieve 'peace in our time,' and Churchill's rise in the UK. Not much on the seige of Leningrad...I know from past experience that Ken Burns' goes back to focus on certain topics. But, this is such a worldwide story, and the American experience in WWII is so dependent on other nations that this seems a little short sighted.He's doing a lot on the Japenese Internment camps, which is interesting, and oft overlooked.But, so far...Feels very 20th Century US History bookreport. Early report is there should have been a prologue episode going from the end of WWI or Hitler taking power in 1933 until Dec. 7, 1945.Incredible footage, as always, though.
Comments
without saying that in the story of World War II,
the US doesn't even enter the stage until the 3rd act.
(I remember your thoughts on Ken Burns' from a past discussion, Motown, and they are very valid.)
Yes, it is based around the four towns- Luverne, MN; Mobile, AL; Scramento, CA; Waterbury, CT.
And, while focusing on the American side makes sense, as that is what Ken Burns does, this is a much more global story than the Civil War, Baseball, or Jazz. I think he should have reconsidered his usual strategy on this one...Too large a scale for this sort of thing.
They just had some bullshitschmaltz music video set to some bullshit about, 'america....i gave my best for you.'
Ken. gimme a fucking story. Not this prepackaged Greatest Generation bullshit.
(NO REAL SPOILERS, BUT MO and OTHERS MAY WANT TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER WATCHING TO READ THIS...)
But, this shit fell FLAT, imo. I just think the scale was WAY too big for his style and scope, and some changes and risks would have been welcome here. And, frankly, those other stories (Civil War, Jazz, Baseball) are so much more based in this country, whereas this is a HUGE, GLOBAL story. Sure, tell the American side of the story, but it just starts to feel so small very quickly.
Doubt I'll watch too much more...and, that fucking music video is borderline unforgivable. Puuuuuhhhllease.
Man, I'm so pissed at this guy.
I'm not mad at Burns for focusing only on the American perspective.
I am mad at him for making it so boring.
The first episode was pretty good. I think it's a bit early to call it a failure or anything. He limited the scope to some degree by framing it from various points of view of people who were there. I learned some things I didn't know and I saw some things I hadn't seen. Some of the musical choices seemed a bit weird like the constant jazz score even when showing scenes like the fire bombing of Dresden. Maybe they thought orchestral music would be cliche, but the jazz doesn't always work.
Even weirder than the music video, which, wasn't all that bad, was that then they started showing more documentary after it.. the tacked on story of the Mexican-Americans. It seemed obvious the Norah Jones bit would be the end of the episode. I thought the next episode was starting, then 10 minutes later, credits roll (at which point thet played this really dark, orchestral music over the credits, which, would have been fitting during the firebombing scenes).
It would be interesting to see the war from the perspective of other countries point of view, but, it wouldn't be reasonable for Ken Burns to make that documentary.
And of the wrong era, no?
I haven't seen it yet, but having read and written enough promo copy to be sick of the thing already, I can tell you that this was certainly not meant to be a definitive history of WWII. And do we really need another one of those anyway? Between the old-school Victory at Sea stuff and the History Channel, there's more WWII documentary work out there than most folks want or need. Burns's take is to collect individual stories (before there's nobody left to tell them) and show the toll that war takes on the people that fight them. It's an exercise in humanizing what we often consider in geopolitical terms???a worthy endeavor I think.
it was a snore.
I agree with the humanizing thing, but really...This was THE STORY of the 20th century, and one of the most fascinating stories ever told.
To begin to make a documentary on it is to come face to face with the scope of that story- from the global politics to the individual people. There is room for both, especially if you are breaking off 16 hours of time. But, to almost completely sacrifice the Macro for the Micro is unforgivable, imo, and paints a seriously flawed picture of this war.
check out Ken's bro Rick Burn's incredible documentary "The Donnor Party"
I think it really comes down to expectations. If you expect this documentary to be a balanced and well-rounded depiction of WWII, then yes, it is seriously flawed. But if you expect it to focus on the personal stories of a group of individuals with WWII as the setting, then it's pretty much dead-on. I can see your point, though???most of Burns's previous work was intended as a balanced and well-rounded depiction of "X," whether it be the history of baseball or the Civil War, so it's reasonable to go into this with the expectation that this will be a similar treatment of WWII.
I'm watching the second episode now and it's a little better than Part 1. I gotta say though, the pacing on those old "Why We Fight" propaganda films is much more to my liking than Burns'.
I missed much of Part 1s dealing with the Japanese internment. They seemed to focus in on the reactions of the Japanese, rather than why they got put away. Am I wrong about this? What did they say was the cause of their relocation? That first episode seemed to just give cursory explanations for why the war started and why the Japanese got sent away and that really turned me off so I turned the station and only occasionaly flipped back.
It occurred to me last night that your expectations are perfectly reasonable, given that the series is titled simple "The War," which, given that Burns's "The Civil War" was a historical overview, would lead someone to reasonably expect a similar type of documentary.
I didn't see this the first two times I watched the series, but the very first thing they show is a short slide that says the War was a huge event that can't be captured by one show, and that the whole point of this series is to focus upon how it affected 4 American towns.
(what follows is pretty disjointed, but it's off the dome, and i'm tired. my toughts:)
As I've watched parts 2 and 3, and it settles into the grind of the war, I do think it's gotten better. The section on pilots in Part 2 was incredible- 'death is different for pilots,' was a real gut punch. And, I was watching it over lunch at work today with a black coworker whose father was a veteran, and not allowed on the front in WWII, and his thoughts echo Burns'- he looks back on this as a great story, with a MAJOR flaw. It is good to see that part of the story.
I just think that, slide at the top and 'different sort of WWII,' story aside, this is simply too large a story to only tell from this point. What made WWII so unique was that the little people made history; but, they were put in that position by the politicians and historical forces that were much bigger than them. And, everyday people rose to the occasion. But, the large and small came together in WWII in such a unique way that we may never see again. But, to leave EITHER part out is to diminish the other. It was a rare moment in history where ALL people were involved.
But, if i see one more fucking Theatre marquee...
The story of the Italian front was amazing. And the footage was facemelt...
God, there was a lot going on then. It really does boggle the mind. And, the story of Babe from Waterbury was a killer.
Oh, and final thought...Look at people's ability to ration, live modestly, and actually put their money where their mouth is on the subjects of patriotism and supporting our troops.
As opposed to now, when a magnet on a Hummer is some bizarre patriotic statement.
As for the differences between then and now they're not comparable just like saying Iraq would be just like Germany and Japan after the war. You had 12 years of the Depression which threatened to tear the country apart. Then we were attacked and 2 major industrial powers (sorry Italy doesn't count on that point) declared war against us. There was a defined enemy, and a real necessity to organize the entire country simply to pump out material and get factories going that were struggling during the Depression, because we really were going to fight a world wide war. I think the war on terror will largely go down like the war on drugs. Terrorism isn't really an enemy, and we're only going after selective terrorist groups. Plus you don't have to mobilze the entire country to fight it. The money spent on the war in Iraq is getting to tremendous levels, but in terms of proportion to GDP/previous wars its not much. The problem with Iraq is that so much of the money has been wasted. I mean most of the reconsturction program has been a complete disaster from day one. Different situations and circumstances IMO.