Political Correctness v. Artistic Vision
I’ve been following this back and forth over Ken Burn’s new WWII documentary between Ken and some (not all) Hispanic groups who were upset that their contributions weren’t included. After hearing their complaints, Ken gave in and offered to add shorts that would be spread throughout the series, but they wanted more. He took the offer back and they put together protest groups and put up websites labeling him a racist. Now, it looks like he is giving in again. Ken Burns and the Old Soldiers Who Wouldn’t Fade Away – washingtonpost.com. Does anyone have the heart to tell him it still won’t be enough?
Yes, it is unfortunate that he didn’t include their contribution, but his artistic vision isn’t required to keep up with a census report. And yes he is famous, but that doesn’t mean he has to change his vision to suit others. He’s a storyteller and he isn’t obligated to check with the local ethnic chamber of commerce before he tells his story. It would have probably been a better story with that added nuance (I would have liked to see it), but it is his story and the writer and lover of the 1st Amendment in me is angry that it has become some group’s PC victim of the moment. This is not a government film, isn’t government sponsored or held up as the beginning and end of absolutely everything that happened. That’s like suggesting that Burn’s Civil War documentary is the “official record” of the Civil War and included every perspective.
Also, let’s not suggest that because its PBS its kind of like the government in that it serves the public. If you actually watched PBS, you would know the station is very focused on individual artistic impressions, popular and unpopular, and that is why people like it. If groups can continue to bully their vision onto someone else’s canvas, what can we say is really a genuine work of art? If it’s forced on the artist, what’s the point? If Ken only wanted to cover the experience of red-headed, fat women in the state of Kansas during the Great Depression, that is his right. If PBS thinks it will sell, they’ll pay for it and if people want to see it, they’ll watch.
As a black woman, I know it hurts to not have your contribution to an important event included, but it isn’t an excuse to hijack someone else’s artistic vision. You can’t make a creator change her painting, book, play or documentary because you know many people will see or read it and you want them to see or read about you. I’m not saying they have no right to voice their complaints, especially considering it will likely be watched by millions. I’m just saying maybe they should stop demanding other people tell their story and transfer all that energy into telling it themselves. With the Internet and the Independent film industry, it is possible to tell myriads of stories that couldn’t be told before without studio backing and millions of dollars. www.politopics.com.
6 Responses to “Political Correctness v. Artistic Vision”
Ken’s work kept them from writing & producing their own work… because why?
[...] Yes, it is unfortunate that he didn’t include their contribution, but his artistic vision isn’t required to keep up with a census report. And yes he is famous, but that doesn’t mean he has to change his vision to suit others. He’s a storyteller and he isn’t obligated to check with the local ethnic chamber of commerce before he tells his story. It would have probably been a better story with that added nuance (I would have liked to see it), but it is his story and the writer and lover of the 1st Amendment in me is angry that it has become some group’s PC victim of the moment. This is not a government film, isn’t government sponsored or held up as the beginning and end of absolutely everything that happened. That’s like suggesting that Burn’s Civil War documentary is the “official record” of the Civil War and included every perspective. (more…) [...]
Angela – I have more sympathy for their position than you seem to. In a nutshell, these groups have a first amendment right to pressure Ken Burns to add their story and recommend a boycott if he doesn’t. I admire Ken Burns greatly and have his entire Baseball series on tape (but no longer have a vcr to play it). It is Ken Burn’s absolute right to refuse to alter his creation.
However, I’m sure the Hispanic group realizes that their stories told by Ken Burns would get a far larger audience than anything they produced independently. That’s why the whining – the stakes are high.
[...] Yes, it is unfortunate that he didn’t include their contribution, but his artistic vision isn’t required to keep up with a census report. And yes he is famous, but that doesn’t mean he has to change his vision to suit others. He’s a storyteller and he isn’t obligated to check with the local ethnic chamber of commerce before he tells his story. It would have probably been a better story with that added nuance (I would have liked to see it), but it is his story and the writer and lover of the 1st Amendment in me is angry that it has become some group’s PC victim of the moment. This is not a government film, isn’t government sponsored or held up as the beginning and end of absolutely everything that happened. That’s like suggesting that Burn’s Civil War documentary is the “official record” of the Civil War and included every perspective. (more…) [...]
Well, the man caved. He has an out that a creative artist doesn’t, and that is his ‘art’ is also historically based, and unlike Civil War novels, cannot make up regiments, lives, and battles.
Unfortunately, unlike a work of fiction- say ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly,’ his documentaries have a minimal obligation for truth. However, tokenism is no answer. There are plenty of options for Hispanics to produce a record of their own. The idea that every ethnic group should have their own series on every major social issue trivializes the very nature of the issues that affect all Americans.
But, humans are selfish and dumb- be they white, black, or any other hue. Ken’s capitulation only reinforces this verity.
Burns has been gimmicky and sappy before, even politically correct, and I’m laughing that he faces PC-based nutty attacks on himself! Nobody sane cares about what Mario Cuomo, Doris Kearns Goodwin, or other eastern lib-Dem elitists think about baseball, and nobody sane confuses Jackie Robinson with Jesus, despite what Burns may believe.
The only thing good that can be said for Burns is that his voice-impersonation gimmick, bad as well as tiresome as it is in his work, is used even more badly by others, including on NPR. (If NPR had TV it would use actors to “re-enact” news, too, I bet.)