Guest DVD Review: Ken Burns’ The War
NOTE: The Moderate Voice runs guest voice posts from time to time. One of the most popular guest voices is Dan Schneider, who does guest reviews for us. TMV coblogger Shaun Mullen loved Ken Burns’ The War…but as you’ll see below, Dan Schneider had a different reaction and he tells you exactly why.
DVD Review Of Ken Burns’ The War
Copyright © by Dan Schneider
In regards to art, greatness is not merely a difference of scale, but a difference of kind, in that the elements that constitute greatness force an almost alchemical change in the nature of the beast. The brushstroke, wordly coinage, motion of the camera, or whatever it is that constitutes the given art, becomes more than the brushstroke, wordly coinage, or motion of the camera.
There seems to be an almost ineffable rise in the ability to invoke reaction from the art’s percipients, and while certainly not supernatural, the great art and the great artist is a cut above, even if the mechanism of the ascendancy is not immediately evident, even to the most astute critic.
This ideal was brought home to me while watching filmmaker Ken Burns’ most recent PBS documentary, The War, co-directed by Lynn Novick, for Burns, despite his ability to often stumble into a great moment, seems not to fundamentally understand the mechanics nor elements that constitute greatness. This 15 plus hour film follows in the wake of three other monumental documentaries he has crafted in the last decade and a half: the magnificent The Civil War- whose only dramatic flaw was the melodramatic schmaltz historian Shelby Foote displayed for the Confederacy, the too long Baseball, and the somnolent Jazz. In between he has crafted some interesting shorter documentaries on subjects as diverse as Mark Twain and Jack Johnson, but his bread and butter has been the marquee ‘big doc.’
Burns has been plagued by years of controversies, both artistically and historically. His best film, The Civil War, which pioneered the Burnsian template of talking heads, melodramatic readings of personal letters, and slow scans of still photographs, accompanied by sometimes highly poetic words (and often purple prose), and swelling crescendos of music, was a triumph of art in a journalistic form.
Yet, even that artistically great film was dogged by numerous historical flaws- documented in Robert Brent Toplin’s book Ken Burn’s The Civil War: Historians Respond. Baseball was far too long, and too obsessed with the cult of personality, rather than the thing that made the game America’s pastime: its history, season by season, and its pennant races. Jazz was a snooze that hagiographized often obscure musicians, and the whole project was a bit too weighted down with Political Correctness.
Now, with the release of his fourth epic, more cracks in the Burnsian aura have shown through. Yes, it is a significant uptick from the downward trajectory of the last two epics, but The War still falls short of The Civil War, and by a longshot. This is because Burns does not seem to understand that content must impact form. Given that the talking heads of this film are the percipients of that event, and not historians, one would think that he might have edited out some of the more banal segments, where the oldsters tend to babble on about minutia- important in their minds, but utterly irrelevant to the neutral observer.
Also, by using actor and celebrity World War Two enthusiast Tom Hanks to read the written observations of a small town journalist, Burns commits another great error of judgment- namely that most of what the editor, and the other quoted letters and commentaries say, are simply not as well wrought nor as emotionally engaging as those culled from the Civil War archives. Moral: not all small town newspaper types are budding Ambrose Bierces.
Then there is the fundamental difference between the still photographs that could be made to suggest or embody a moment, as in The Civil War, and the predominance of home and government approved films that captured life at home and abroad during those years. Whereas the still photographs benefited from commentary and music that guided the viewer into emotional terrain, this can al be accomplished by the motion of the motion pictures.
As example, in one scene, we see some dead and live American and Japanese soldiers sliding down a muddy embankment on a Pacific isle they are warring on. The voiceover then tells of the disgust soldiers could feel, with the weather, the rain, the maggots, the mud, etc., yet, even a not so astute observer can sense this from the scene and the expressions on the living soldiers’ faces. Thus, the voiceover is not merely recapitulative, but outright redundant, for the things it states are far better expressed by the moving image, especially since so much of his footage has never been seen before, and was given to Burns alone, for this project.
That he would squander such an opportunity seems almost artistically criminal. Even worse, that Burns has welded himself to such formal extremes, even if successful in the earlier, greater war film, shows that he really does not comprehend the mechanisms for effective storytelling.
That said, he does do a few very good things in this film, like shying away from the meta-narrative that hagiographizes the Great Men Of History: FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, have been examined to death, so his emphasis on the people of four small American towns is a good choice, although including a big city or two- since America was urbanizing at the time, would have been welcome, as well as deflated the worst, almost Beaver Cleaverian, tendencies that Burns tends to mythologize.
While there were powerful moments, as stated, far too high a percentage of the recollections are banal, and should have been outtakes. Of the 20 or so recurring personal tales, only three stood out- that of former U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, Sascha Weinzheimer and the internees in Manila, and the Minnesota flyboy, Quentin Aanenson. Yet, even Aanenson unwittingly undermined the Burnsian technique by stating what was obvious, in the series seventh and final episode, that he simply had not the power to contextualize his experience to others. What’s worse is that he was much better than the others.
This is not an argument for Burns to have fallen back on the most trite of his techniques- the expert talking head. N, instead, Burns should have seized the opportunity to reinvent himself and his film technique, to push the envelope and let the material dictate the form of the piece. Or, if not, he could have at least found more eloquent subjects. Last year, I had a job where I spent hundreds of hours interviewing war veterans, from the 1920s on, and even have read some of their own books. Many would have been far more interesting subjects, both in their experiences and in their ability to convey those experiences to others, rather than often merely staring blankly into the camera. That Burns allows so many of these moments to drag interminably on reveals he does not understand what is truly effective dramatically, and what is merely dull and ill edited; although some of the blame has to be shouldered by Burns’ longtime screenwriter, Geoffrey C. Ward.
This failure, however, was not the worst. While Burns came under some fire for his failures to either include or exclude certain musicians and musical pieces for his Jazz series, the scoring of this film, by Wynton Marsalis, is easily the worst, mostly for the inaptness of the image against the music. Not much was made of contemporary music, even though the Swing Era was at its height and even the American military was swept up in it.
Instead, there are some slight references to popular songs, and at a few times in the series, and most dismally, to end the final episode, there is a horrendous contemporary song that is used. It is a slow piano ballad called American Anthem, whose lyrics are the worst sort of PC garbage, whose melody is somnolent, and whose voicing by Norah Jones is nothing short of atrocious- just a rung or two above the sorts of performances that induce guffaws on American Idol. Perhaps the only repeated scoring that works is another piano piece that sounds like a dirge-like descent into the abyss.
Almost as bad as the scoring were three particular episodes, the first, fifth and sixth, that had tacked on endings- two on Hispanic soldiers, and the worst one on an American Indian soldier, all three with teeth gritting appellations about ‘other stories.’ The two Hispanic epi-lets were wholly forgettable, as their subjects ‘stories’ were merely recapitulations of what was contained in the primary episode, and the Indian one was embarrassingly PC and racist. It followed a not too bright Crow Indian who unwittingly fulfilled the clauses needed for him to become a chief. Not only was the interviewee clearly not ‘all there,’ but his Private Snafu routine with a feather act was an example of liberal racism at its worst. Yes, let’s feed the stereotype of the American Indian as a buffoon who becomes a medicine man, or chief, etc. Geez!
That Burns added these, after bowing to strong arm tactics by a Latino group, does not speak well to his actual artistic vision. He should have told them to hang, that he could not add epi-lets for every hyphenated American group that felt marginalized, yet instead, by his own admission, marred his art, because he and Novick responded ‘with our hearts.’ This inability to tell the whole tale of America during World War Two, was, after all, the very rationale for his selecting the four small towns he did: Mobile, Alabama; Waterbury, Connecticut; Luverne, Minnesota; and Sacramento, California. Interestingly, Burns did not bow to pressure to censor the salty language out of the film, for when the narrator, Keith David, explains the meanings of the acronyms SNAFU and FUBAR, the word ‘fuck’ is uncensored, although some PBS stations did censor it.
Instead, Burns should have focused alot more on the individual acts of the war- such as the gripping tales of an American soldier who tries to pluck gold fillings out of a paralyzed, but still living, Japanese soldier, is upbraided, has a buddy shoot the Jap, then continues his looting. Or, the gripping account of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, which delivered Big Boy to its destination, then was sunk by a Japanese submarine. Its survivors spent days afloat, battling with sharks to survive. The one positive thing that the film does is it does not fetishistically linger over the Holocaust nor the atomic bomb.
Granted, Burns does not often fall into The Greatest Generation claptrap that was so nauseating a decade ago- after all, yes, that generation defeated the Nazis and Japanese empires, but did nothing to end segregation and interned 120,000 Japanese-American citizens. By contrast, the Baby Boomers presided over the downfall of the Soviet Empire, sent man to the moon, ended the folly of Vietnam, supported Civil Rights and Women’s Liberation, founded the modern Conservation movement, and survived the political hari-kiri of Watergate and Iran-Contra. By my scorecard, the Baby Boomers win by a substantial margin.
Yet, given all the potential that Burns demonstrated with his magisterial, if flawed, The Civil War, those many years ago, The War comes off as a passable, though ultimately forgettable, document- a solid 70 out of 100; but far short of the BBC’s mid-1970s landmark (albeit Anglophilic) The World At War, still the touchstone documentary effort regarding World War Two. The reasons for these I have documented.
So, I must return to my earlier posit, that this solid effort is not only different in scale from The Civil War, but different in kind. One may be able to pinpoint a scene here, or a dozen there, see the flaw stemming from Burns’ own parting of ways with his brother Ric Burns, who was instrumental in many of Ken Burns’ earlier, better works, or some other reason I have not spotted, or have forgotten in the morass of this film’s heft- even though it seems far less weighty than the shorter great film. Yet, whatever that reason is, or those reasons are, to most they will remain as ineffable as the insights so many of Burns’ subjects could not voice. And, after all, is not the voice the key to all good stories?
Lo!
24 Responses to “Guest DVD Review: Ken Burns’ The War”
I couldn’t disagree more with this review. I think my difference with it centers on this:
“… one would think that he might have edited out some of the more banal segments, where the oldsters tend to babble on about minutia- important in their minds, but utterly irrelevant to the neutral observer.”
The reviewer picks out a few things that he liked. Then he says everything else was dreck. No, it wasn’t. It was completeness of not only what it was like in the foxholes, but back home. I very much liked how this series covered both.
I heard Ken Burns say that he did not intend this to be the definitive story of World War II. I suppose that would be impossible, since the story of even one of the countries involved is massive, any one of them, from China to Poland to the major combatants. World War II changed everything, from nations to individuals. But I like what Ken Burns has done here better than any other single documentary on the war. I suppose it’s understandable if some snob doesn’t see it that way.
David: ‘The reviewer picks out a few things that he liked. Then he says everything else was dreck. No, it wasn’t. It was completeness of not only what it was like in the foxholes, but back home. I very much liked how this series covered both.’
You contradict yourself. You state what YOU like in the series: I point to objective criteria:
‘As example, in one scene, we see some dead and live American and Japanese soldiers sliding down a muddy embankment on a Pacific isle they are warring on. The voiceover then tells of the disgust soldiers could feel, with the weather, the rain, the maggots, the mud, etc., yet, even a not so astute observer can sense this from the scene and the expressions on the living soldiers’ faces. Thus, the voiceover is not merely recapitulative, but outright redundant, for the things it states are far better expressed by the moving image, especially since so much of his footage has never been seen before, and was given to Burns alone, for this project.
That he would squander such an opportunity seems almost artistically criminal. Even worse, that Burns has welded himself to such formal extremes, even if successful in the earlier, greater war film, shows that he really does not comprehend the mechanisms for effective storytelling.
That said, he does do a few very good things in this film, like shying away from the meta-narrative that hagiographizes the Great Men Of History: FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, have been examined to death, so his emphasis on the people of four small American towns is a good choice, although including a big city or two- since America was urbanizing at the time, would have been welcome, as well as deflated the worst, almost Beaver Cleaverian, tendencies that Burns tends to mythologize.
That is specific and void of emotion. It’s called analysis.
‘But I like what Ken Burns has done here better than any other single documentary on the war. I suppose it’s understandable if some snob doesn’t see it that way.’
Great. You can like it, but it was not that good. And, what a surprise, name calling!
I almost totally disagree with Dan Schneider’s take on the latest Ken Burns documentary. I believe the enormity of that war, and the level of sacrifice involved was mined and revealed by Burns with great skill and heart. Schneider’s response to the movie forces me to question how much he fully comprehends about the war itself. His comments about the “greatest generation” in comparison to the boomers is one clue to that incomprehension – and I am a boomer by the way. Also I found the musical score to be very inspired and appropriate, hardly deserving of the “worst” label Schneider slaps on it. Reviewing or being a critic is one thing, having an ax to grind is quite another. If Schneider feels this glib in his criticism of the film, and thinks he could make a better documentary about WWII, then he should have at it. For my own part, I think The War is a movie that ought to be seen by all Americans.
Interesting discussion of how the voiceover kills the filmed moment itself. I just happened upon this discussion at Transom about Storytelling in image and sound. In the section, “Privilege the Images over Words” author Ben Shapiro says
and then he goes on to discuss how determining what’s “too much” takes place in the act of editing a film. He describes a project where voiceover was too much, so he ended up taking away lots of voiceover, leaving just the minimal amount to tie the visual bits together.
The War was itself a long and intense bout of TV watching, so I can’t cast my mind back to the exact scene you describe. But I find that your critique rings true.
To your short list of essential narrator stories (Sasha W, Q Aanensen, Inouye — Inouye’s statement about the guy bringing out photos of his family and Inouye saying, “*that*’s war” was a standout moment), I’d add one more: Glenn Frazier. His P.O.W. experience, story of the confrontation with Japanese officer, and final-episode discussion of learning to cope were very affecting.
But I don’t think that I’d cull my list as short as yours. (tho yes, over 7 episodes, 4 cities, two war fronts and 14 hours, they did jump around a lot) There were many striking moments in the narratives. The contrast between Babe Ciarlo’s lighthearted letters and what was actually happening in Italy was effective in showing how one soldier protected his mother from the realities of war. Sam Hynds’s opening description of why one enlists was so insightful. And the Sacramento paperboy fellow who described how his classmate was there one day and wasn’t the next was also poignant. I don’t think I’d want to rid the story of homefront racial tension of African Americans and Japanese, either. So I guess this is a “yes and” and “yes but” that, more than anything, acknowledges that it’s very difficult to somehow capture the whole by capturing the parts.
I agree with you, tho, about the tacked-on ness of the extra material, especially the transition at end of Episode 1 to the ‘more stories’
I’ve read several reviews of The War, and perception varies, I think, depending on one’s own depth of knowledge about WW2. (or, for that matter, Civil War, etc.) Those who know more, and see events as undivorced from strategy/decisionmaking, are dissatisfied with Burns’s approach. I appreciated the “common person” perspective (well, anyone who’s got a site devoted to tools and techniques for capturing and preserving stories of family members would be predisposed toward the “you were alive during that time, what did you do? How did the war affect you?” approach.
I’ve not watched much of Burns’s other works — a coupla episodes of Civil War and the Statue of Liberty show. I’ve certainly learned from the episodes I’ve seen.
At the same time, i can see where that ‘good learning’ can be Not A Good Thing: I’ve read critiques that a Burns documentary ends up standing in place for other, deeper research; word has it that school curriculum doesn’t make kids hit the books or do other research, but put on a Burns film. I certainly acknowledge the merits of this limitation. Sure, I learned things I didn’t know, but Burns’s WW2 treatment is not all I know of that war, and I’d hate for it to be so.
Am intrigued by your description of you job interviewing veterans. Do you describe that at all on your site? I’ll have to explore more there.
I am sorry to say that Mr. Schneider’s comments left me wondering if we saw the same documentary. It is too bad that history in the raw, such as Ken Burns’ effort to splice into14 hours, and a few comments by some of the participants, out of five momentous war years, from sources all over the world, can be compared to maybe something as bad as a 1950′s version of a Hollywood Sci-Fi movie. I was especially offended by the comparison he made to the accomplishments of the baby boomers to the children of the depression who fought and won that war. Except for that generation we would be speaking either German, Japanese, or both, while the baby boomer generation has given us Woodstock, rampant government spending, and illegal immigration that threatens the very foundation of America, and let’s be honest here, the current war in the Middle East..
On the contrary, being a depression baby myself, I have longed for one definitive attempt to put World War II in a perspective, with all the warts still attached, for today’s ordinary American to appreciate what went into it. Until I saw Ken Burns work the closest to that goal I had ever seen was the “Victory At Sea†series of the 1950′s. I was especially impressed that the leadership shortcomings were not swept under the rug. The D-Day wave boat leader that took the landing force to a beach two miles from the intended landing point. The tanks that never got to Omaha Beach because they sank as fast as they came off the ship’s ramps. The inexperience in North Africa that led to such near disaster early after the Americans arrived. Walking in on a coral reef from 500 yards out while under grazing fire at Tarawa. The still disputed necessity of ever invading Peleliu. The misuse of the Japanese Americans Combat Teams in Italy and France. Even the cost in lives for General Eisenhower’s endorsement of the attempt to enter Germany by parachute along a single lane highway 65 miles into enemy territory was explored. None of these things have been covered with such authority before.
Wars are not perfect, just as no journalistic effort, or other human undertaking can ever be, and any method of looking back on such an undertaking will always bring out opposing views. And in this particular instance forget the music. If we must have the proper music to set the tone of our history lessons we are in more trouble than any of us is willing to admit.
I hope the film will be seen for what it is by the educators we send our children to. It belongs in the curricula of every high school and college in the country.
HenryClay
J Spencer: ‘Reviewing or being a critic is one thing, having an ax to grind is quite another. If Schneider feels this glib in his criticism of the film, and thinks he could make a better documentary about WWII, then he should have at it. For my own part, I think The War is a movie that ought to be seen by all Americans.’
Glibness is making snarky remarjs w/o backing them up, as you’ve done. If you actually read the review, you will see that I detail the reasons why the film’s points did not work.
Again, in order to comment on something, one should engage it.
Auntalias: Yes, Burns violates a trite, but often true, truism- it’s better to show than tell. I agree that there were interesting tales. My problem was, as I said re: Aanenson, the folk simply were not gifted at conveying their tales the way the Civil war letters did.
Re: my job, no, I don’t talk of it because I had to sign confidentiality agreements for a certain period of time as part of my co’s contract w government agencies.
However, here is a review of a book published by one of the vets I interviewed: http://www.cosmoetica.com/B468-DES401.htm
Henry: ‘Except for that generation we would be speaking either German, Japanese, or both, while the baby boomer generation has given us Woodstock, rampant government spending, and illegal immigration that threatens the very foundation of America, and let’s be honest here, the current war in the Middle East.’
W/o the Baby Boomers, we’d be in Gulags, blacks wd still pay poll taxes, and women wd still be sexually repressed. And let’s face it, the WW2 Generation actually was the first to unbalance the budget, gave us the military industrial complex, Vietnam, and Watergate. Sorry, Boomers win, and I’m a Gen Xer.
There’s no doubt that Burns’ doc did some good things, but overall it was tedious, and other docs have done better. But it’s a supplemental piece of history, to a better series like the BBC’s The World At War.
Cosmoetica;>> I’m sorry, but unless you are just being snarky, I have completely missed the Gulag part of American history. Can you give me the name of one so that I can do some research on it.>> In the beginning of the Republic only male members of the landed gentry could vote. Later, only persons whose fathers “and†grandfathers had voted could vote. Then, you had to pay a poll tax, (show that you were not a ward of the government), to vote. I thought poll taxes were being defeated, and in fact were defeated, long before the baby boomers came of age. Maybe I’m wrong, though. Maybe the boomers had more political clout than I had given them credit for when the last poll tax fell in 1966, by then they were in their mid to late teens after all. And eventually, (now), since the baby boomers are in control even an illegal alien with a stolen identity can register to vote when renewing his, (or her), driver’s license.>> Excuse me, I don’t think baby boomers invented sex. But at the current, (2005 figure), of a 37 percent unwed mother birth rate, (and that’s in the face of all the preventive measures that the WWII generation didn’t have), if you mean having sex without the responsibilities that accompany it is a good thing, then one of us has our priorities askew.>> Once again we disagree. If my history teachings are correct, the first US deficits began when the Continental Congress had no money and promised to collect some taxes to repay George Washington for his personal expenses in keeping his army at Valley Forge. The debt was never fully paid. But if you mean WWII was fought on borrowed money, I’ll agree. However I will also invite a review of the US Treasury Departments figures that show the war debt was being paid down for the first twenty or so years after the war, which included having another war, (1950-1953), in the paydown period.>> Sorry, my mind doesn’t conceive “military industrial complex”. I can sort of understand what a shopping center complex does. It supplies a community with goods and services. If you mean the “military industrial complex” is not necessary to provide anything of value, then who is to protect the freedoms we insist on? And BTW, a Mr. Sandoval of the SFO City Supervisors was asked that very question last year. His answer was, “Well, we have the police.†I trust your answer will be better thought out.>> The Vietnam War was the result of a treaty between seven nations against communist expansion, (specifically the SEATO Treaty), and the war was not lost in Vietnam. It was lost by the baby boomers walking in the streets right here in America. At least that’s what General Vo Nyguen Giap, the military leader of the winners said after we left millions to die over there.>> The Watergate buglary was actually conceived and conducted by inept baby boomers who didn’t have the manhood to accept the responsibility for what they had done. The political fallout was the result of trying to protect them. Nixon should have thrown them to the jailers himself.>> Please don’t call the game just yet. What have the boomers really won so far, and what is in the making for the rest of the game?
Regarding my “except for the WWII generation” remark about speaking German or Japanese. I did a Google search for Japanese quotes and here are just a few. They display an acute, and frightening, similarity to some of the things we are currently hearing from voices in the Middle East:
< <<<
Professor T. Tomaki, Kyoto Imperial University, from a radio speech during February of 1942: “Japan is the foundation and the axis of the world. The world must be unified around Japan. Without unity there will be no peace. When the world is unified under one power, then there will be eternal peace. Japan is the ruling nation of the world.â€
Same person, on Tokyo Radio, also in February of 1942: “There is a spitefulness in the Europeans and Americans. This, too, is a reason that Europeans and Americans should be annihilated.â€>>>>>
For the German side, please recall in the sixth episode of the film that Mr. Leopold from Waterbury Connecticut told of interviewing a German POW who had been in training as part of a Commission the Third Reich had established, and whose duty it would have been to administer civilian affairs in Mr. Leopold’s home town.
I hope the moderators won’t think we have strayed from the original subject, and I won’t accuse you of glibness, but I will point out that you admonished J. Spencer about snarky remarks without backing them up. So let’s investigate some of the remarks you directed at me.
You say: W/o the Baby Boomers:
< <
< <
< <
< <
< <
< <
< <
< <
I have no objections to the BBC series “The World at War” being in our classrooms, right along with Ken Burns’ “The War”. In fact, I’d like to see more classroom emphasis put on the cost of our freedoms, (and the responsibilities that accompany those freedoms), and less emphasis on freedom as a stand alone gratuity.
HC
Henry:
Re: the Japanese quotes- what do they have to do w anything? We know Japan wanted to rule the Pacific.
You said: ‘and I won’t accuse you of glibness, but I will point out that you admonished J. Spencer about snarky remarks without backing them up.’
Here’s what J Spencer typed: ‘‘Reviewing or being a critic is one thing, having an ax to grind is quite another. If Schneider feels this glib in his criticism of the film’
I typed: ‘Glibness is making snarky remarjs w/o backing them up, as you’ve done. If you actually read the review, you will see that I detail the reasons why the film’s points did not work’ and detailed my crits of the film, such as ‘‘As example, in one scene, we see some dead and live American and Japanese soldiers sliding down a muddy embankment on a Pacific isle they are warring on. The voiceover then tells of the disgust soldiers could feel, with the weather, the rain, the maggots, the mud, etc., yet, even a not so astute observer can sense this from the scene and the expressions on the living soldiers’ faces. Thus, the voiceover is not merely recapitulative, but outright redundant, for the things it states are far better expressed by the moving image, especially since so much of his footage has never been seen before, and was given to Burns alone, for this project.
That he would squander such an opportunity seems almost artistically criminal. Even worse, that Burns has welded himself to such formal extremes, even if successful in the earlier, greater war film, shows that he really does not comprehend the mechanisms for effective storytelling.
That said, he does do a few very good things in this film, like shying away from the meta-narrative that hagiographizes the Great Men Of History: FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, have been examined to death, so his emphasis on the people of four small American towns is a good choice, although including a big city or two- since America was urbanizing at the time, would have been welcome, as well as deflated the worst, almost Beaver Cleaverian, tendencies that Burns tends to mythologize.
That is specific and void of emotion. It’s called analysis. ‘
That J calls detailed analysis like that glib, is evidence of his glibness, or lack of reading.
You typed: ‘I’m sorry, but unless you are just being snarky, I have completely missed the Gulag part of American history. Can you give me the name of one so that I can do some research on it.’
Earlier, you had typed: ‘Except for that generation we would be speaking either German, Japanese, or both.’
So, I replied that ‘we’d be in Gulags’ because just as the WW2 Gen saved us from the Axis, the Boomers saved us from the Red Horde that also wanted to take over the world, and killed more humans than the Japs and Nazis combined. If one is gonna give cred to the WW2 gen for saving us from them, then the Boomers take credit for the defeat of Communism.
You typed: ‘I thought poll taxes were being defeated, and in fact were defeated, long before the baby boomers came of age. Maybe I’m wrong, though.’
You are wrong. Poll taxes, in many rural parts of the south, continued into the 70s, and it was the Boomers, not the WW2 gen that ended it. After all, Bull Connor and co, were WW2 gen folk, right?
You typed: ‘Excuse me, I don’t think baby boomers invented sex. But at the current, (2005 figure), of a 37 percent unwed mother birth rate, (and that’s in the face of all the preventive measures that the WWII generation didn’t have), if you mean having sex without the responsibilities that accompany it is a good thing, then one of us has our priorities askew.’
I typed ‘and women wd still be sexually repressed.’ So, not only are your priorities skewed, but so is your reading comprehension. And the 37% unwed mother rate, if true, is due to sexual repression. After all, in the 31st C, there’s no reason in the world that children shd not have sex ed, be told of birth control and the benefits of condoms and abortions. That is, unless you still have the hangups that were typical of the WW2 Gen.
You typed: ‘Sorry, my mind doesn’t conceive “military industrial complexâ€. I can sort of understand what a shopping center complex does. It supplies a community with goods and services. If you mean the “military industrial complex†is not necessary to provide anything of value, then who is to protect the freedoms we insist on? And BTW, a Mr. Sandoval of the SFO City Supervisors was asked that very question last year. His answer was, “Well, we have the police.†I trust your answer will be better thought out.’
No one says we shd not have a military, but that is different than the ‘military industrial complex’ which are war profiteers who defraud the gov’t and taxpayers of billions of dollars due to the foisting upon of unneeded and overpriced systems, like the Osprey, that don’t work Of course, since you ‘conceive “military industrial complex‒ I doubt you will understand.
You typed: ‘The Vietnam War was the result of a treaty between seven nations against communist expansion, (specifically the SEATO Treaty), and the war was not lost in Vietnam. It was lost by the baby boomers walking in the streets right here in America. At least that’s what General Vo Nyguen Giap, the military leader of the winners said after we left millions to die over there.’
The Vietnam war was a Civil War between 2 parties, one backed by Communist Imperialists, and one backed by Capitalist Imperialists. Both were corrupt, mass murdering regimes. This is 2007, not 1967, so can the agitprop. The Vietnamese, however, have pretty much adopted capitalism anyway. Look how many lives were lost for no reason at all. We lost because we tried and failed to impose our will on a people, and we deserved to lose. Just as the Russians later lost in Afghanistan, their Vietnam. If you think the Anti-War movement lost the war, I suggest you watch The Fog Of War, where Bob McNamara admits it was we who screwed up. He was the Defense Secretary, after all, who helped lose the war.
You typed: ‘The Watergate buglary was actually conceived and conducted by inept baby boomers who didn’t have the manhood to accept the responsibility for what they had done. The political fallout was the result of trying to protect them. Nixon should have thrown them to the jailers himself.’
Liddy was born in 1930, and Howard Hunt in 1918. Sorry. Wrong Generation. Next.
You typed: ‘Please don’t call the game just yet. What have the boomers really won so far, and what is in the making for the rest of the game?’
Sorry, too late. The Boomers are already moved out to pasture, so we can pretty much compare the 2 gens, and it’s Boomers by a substantial lot, as detailed above. Let’s see, I give accurate specifics, and you give foggy nostalgia and BS.
Game. Set. Match.
Crumpets?
Cos
You. . . “Re: the Japanese quotes- what do they have to do w anything? We know Japan wanted to rule the Pacific†– - – -
They don’t have anything to do with what “everybody knows†about ruling the Pacific. Which makes it obvious how little you know about WWII, not to mention the fact that you didn’t read the quotes.
“Gulagsâ€
You cleared up (???) your earlier snarky comment about Gulags, , , I guess. But wouldn’t it have been better to have avoided the snarkiness in the first place? And I’m not sure how many of “their own people†the Red Hordes killed. It is pretty well documented that the Germans killed about 20 million of them. Then again, maybe you got your, “more than the Japs and Nazis combined†information from the same place where you learned the Japanese wanted to rule the Pacific.
You . . “If one is gonna give cred to the WW2 gen for saving us from them, then the Boomers take credit for the defeat of Communismâ€
I guess I’ve also misunderstood about who caused the downfall of Communism in Russia. I say Russia because unlike you, I can’t say Communism as an ideology is defeated just yet. . . . But what do I know? That aside, what boomer was in charge when the Russians were putting atomic warheads on missiles in Cuba. I always thought it was John Kennedy, a product of WWII, who stared the entire Russian empire down Then later, I guess it was another boomer who issued the challenge, “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear down this wallâ€. And then later when it did fall, with Communism collapsing on the on the other side of it, I suppose the people in charge were baby boomers there too. He, and other men like him. Ronald Reagan that is.. . . .
You. . . .â€Poll taxes, in many rural parts of the south, continued into the 70s, and it was the Boomers, not the WW2 gen that ended it. After all, Bull Connor and co, were WW2 gen folk, right?†. . .
Wrong. The Supreme Court abolished poll taxes in March of 1966. I think they let the poll tax in New Jersey stand because it was imposed on driver’s licenses rather than voter registration. And what did the Bull Connor ever have to do with poll taxes, anyway, wasn’t he more prone to use sticks and fire hoses?
You . . . “The Vietnam war was a Civil Warâ€.
Whew! So now, according to you, , , When one country, flying it’s own flag, under it’s own form of government, sends it’s forces into another country, who is flying it’s own separate flag, for the sole purpose of disrupting and undermining that government, is now a civil war? That makes the North Korean invasion into South Korea a civil war also, , , , I guess. Likewise Saddam Hussein going into Kuwait in 1990. He did annex Kuwait and call it one of his own provinces, after all. Yeah, by definition that would be a civil war inside , , , inside what? Kuwait? Iraq? By golly, what would you call the place such a war was being fought?
You. . . “ I suggest you watch The Fog Of War, where Bob McNamara admits it was we who screwed up. He was the Defense Secretary, after all, who helped lose the war.â€
Let’s see now. Kennedy sent some advisors into South Vietnam in 1963. Then Johnson upped the ante with combat troops in 1965. McNamara left the Defense Department in November, 1967, when Johnson announced that he, (McNamara), would resign to become president of the World Bank. Some people, (maybe even a lot of people), refer to that sort of announcement as his having been fired. The 1968 Tet had not yet occurred, and America’s involvement in the war, (less than three years old at the time), lasted another 6 years. Yep, McNamara was the cause of it all. Jane Fonda and John Kerry didn’t have anything to do with it, and General Vo Ngyuen Giap didn’t have a clue about why or how he won. And McNamara, aka Mr. Edsel, aka Mr. Zero Defects, aka Mr. Disharmony, a man who was so overbearing that he was seldom able to see through to completion any job he ever set out on, and who spent the last 40 years trying to explain his failures, should be THE authority on the Vietnam war. Gimme a break.
You wrote earlier “and women wd still be sexually repressed†but now you change it all and claim . . . “the 37% unwed mother rate, if true, is due to sexual repression. After all, in the 31st C, there’s no reason in the world that children shd not have sex ed, be told of birth control and the benefits of condoms and abortions.â€
Maybe in the 31st Century, but this is still a thousand years short of that. , and the 37 percent isn’t that hard to verify. Fact is, that’s the 2005 national average. Among one category of Americans it was closer to 70 percent and climbing. And with all that sexual repression having been relieved by the baby boomers, (as you say in one place and repudiate in another), where is the education that was supposed to accompany it, if it was ever acheived?
As for the “militery industrial complex” bilking the public, I commend to you the story of the General Dynamic TFX afa the F-111, and connections Robert McNamara, Lyndon Johnson, James Wright, and their fellow travelers in the finance business had with it. It’s be pointless to mention to you the number of Young Americans who were killed when all they had to figfht with was the AR-15 version of the M-16. I really don’t think you’d understand.
You . . . “The Boomers are already moved out to pastureâ€.
All of a sudden the boomers loose their place on the stage. SNAP!!! Just like that and whoof, they’re gone. Even with the very oldest of them is only about 60 now, and in a world where age 60 is when a person can really make their experience be felt the most. But I guess the boomers get a pass.
There have been three posters in this string besides yourself and the opening article. You have taken each to task about not only their views on the Ken Burns film, but you have not missed a point that anyone has made which runs counter to yours. My, my. It must be verrry lonely up there in that rarified air where you are.
But what I really see in your writing is something like a Liberal Arts major wannabe making a stab at an entrance essay in hopes of being accepted for a beginners class, but grasping to cover all the bases in the event of being questioned about principles.
Good Luck, but it won’t be me holding the door for you at the Summa Cum Laude banquet on graduation day.
Henry:
I read the quotes, and they are still nonsequiturs.
And I know plenty of WW2, which is why I could distill why Burns’ series was so lacking.
Stalin killed between 20 & 60 million in his 30+ year rule, and Mao topped him, with some estimates doubling that. 30 million alone dies in 59-61 during the forced starvation Mao wrought. This is history. Read some.
As for snark. It started with : ‘Except for that generation we would be speaking either German, Japanese, or both, while the baby boomer generation has given us Woodstock, rampant government spending, and illegal immigration that threatens the very foundation of America, and let’s be honest here, the current war in the Middle East.’
Which is why I debunked it with: ‘because just as the WW2 Gen saved us from the Axis, the Boomers saved us from the Red Horde that also wanted to take over the world, and killed more humans than the Japs and Nazis combined. If one is gonna give cred to the WW2 gen for saving us from them, then the Boomers take credit for the defeat of Communism.’
You: ‘I always thought it was John Kennedy, a product of WWII, who stared the entire Russian empire down Then later, I guess it was another boomer who issued the challenge, “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear down this wallâ€. And then later when it did fall, with Communism collapsing on the on the other side of it, I suppose the people in charge were baby boomers there too. He, and other men like him. Ronald Reagan that is’
Well, let’s see, if one is crediting the WW2 Gen for defeating the Axis, because the men who fought were of that gen, then one has to credit the Boomers with defeating the Reds, as they fought in Vietnam. Otherwise, if you want to cred the WW2 Gen w defeat of the Reds, then they cannot claim WW2, since it was WW1 Gen guys who led the US to Victory- MacArthur, FDR, Patton, Truman, Ike, were not WW2 gen. You cannot have it both ways.
‘Wrong. The Supreme Court abolished poll taxes in March of 1966. I think they let the poll tax in New Jersey stand because it was imposed on driver’s licenses rather than voter registration. And what did the Bull Connor ever have to do with poll taxes, anyway, wasn’t he more prone to use sticks and fire hoses?’
And the US Constitution said ‘All men are created equal’, yet blacks suffered slavery and Jim Crow for centuries after. One can legally change things, but if blacks go to vote, and are denied- (think 2000 Florida or 2004 Ohio), that’s denial of a basic right, whatever you call it. And Connor was amongst those most ardent deniers. Sorry, rewrite the 1960s on your own dime, but reality does not change because you don’t like it. Just ask many black folk in the South how long they were harassed at polling place. Next.
‘Yep, McNamara was the cause of it all. Jane Fonda and John Kerry didn’t have anything to do with it, and General Vo Ngyuen Giap didn’t have a clue about why or how he won.’
Re McNamara, I typed, ‘He was the Defense Secretary, after all, who helped lose the war.’ I said HELPED, and, yes, he wd be a far greater authority on why the US lost the war than any Vietnamese general. AS for Fonda and Kerry, LOL. Were you part of the Swiftboat psychotics? No wonder you know so little of history. Yeah, it was a movie star and a hippy-cum-political hack that lost the war.
Henry: ‘“and women wd still be sexually repressed†but now you change it all and claim . . . “the 37% unwed mother rate, if true, is due to sexual repression. After all, in the 31st C, there’s no reason in the world that children shd not have sex ed, be told of birth control and the benefits of condoms and abortions.â€
Maybe in the 31st Century, but this is still a thousand years short of that. , and the 37 percent isn’t that hard to verify. Fact is, that’s the 2005 national average. Among one category of Americans it was closer to 70 percent and climbing. And with all that sexual repression having been relieved by the baby boomers, (as you say in one place and repudiate in another), where is the education that was supposed to accompany it, if it was ever acheived?’
1) the 3 was a typo, as was your above misspell of achieved.
2) General sexual freedom does not mean that specific instances of repression do not occur, such as threats at abortion clinics, local school districts abdicating responsible sex and health information, and a gov’t that thinks abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy and VDs.
3) ‘where is the education that was supposed to accompany it, if it was ever acheived?”
Easy, being haggled over by sexually repressed, and benighted, religious fanatics. Do you even watch the news?
1st you could not conceive of the military industrial complex, and now you are agreeing with me that it’s a danger. Make up yr mind.
‘You have taken each to task about not only their views on the Ken Burns film, but you have not missed a point that anyone has made which runs counter to yours.’
Exactly, because, unlike many online commenters, I actually read what people write, and debunk their misquotes, misassertions, and deceptions (self or otherwise). If you actually read the review, I give it a 70 out of 100, a passable grade, yet you and another, act as if I dissed the film. I did not. But it has major flaws which I detailed, and not glibly, and my responses have not been snarky. You and another poster injected glibness and snark, and when I kneecapped those claims, you whine. Don’t be snarky in the future if you do not want your misinformation debunked.
‘But what I really see in your writing is something like a Liberal Arts major wannabe making a stab at an entrance essay in hopes of being accepted for a beginners class, but grasping to cover all the bases in the event of being questioned about principles.’
Haha. I’m the antithesis of that, and there’s not an MFA yuppy scum who could analyze in detail like: ‘As example, in one scene, we see some dead and live American and Japanese soldiers sliding down a muddy embankment on a Pacific isle they are warring on. The voiceover then tells of the disgust soldiers could feel, with the weather, the rain, the maggots, the mud, etc., yet, even a not so astute observer can sense this from the scene and the expressions on the living soldiers’ faces. Thus, the voiceover is not merely recapitulative, but outright redundant, for the things it states are far better expressed by the moving image, especially since so much of his footage has never been seen before, and was given to Burns alone, for this project.’
But, again, that would actually require you to read something, with an open mind, when it’s clear that baby done be glued shut since about 1962!
It is a slow piano ballad called American Anthem, whose lyrics are the worst sort of PC garbage, whose melody is somnolent, and whose voicing by Norah Jones is nothing short of atrocious- just a rung or two above the sorts of performances that induce guffaws on American Idol.
Hi Dan,
Can you elaborate here? I relistened to American Anthem on YouTube and double-checked the definition of PC on Wikipedia but I can’t figure out how the lyrics are watered down to minimally offend.
Kudos on all the fancy words in your review.
Ollie:
Middlebrow patriotism about how great the US is, with ‘giving it all’ for the USA, amid images of soldiers of all stripes.
If you need more explanation, I suggest a dictionary, not Wikipedia.
No plaudits on the attempt to divert the conversation, but then you’re new, and the bad ballad probably ‘touched you deeply.’
Brava.
I still don’t understand your specific complaint; is it that the lyrics are unremarkable in expressing a sentiment or that said sentiment is corny?
If it’s the former, OK…I can understand that. Not everyone can be Leonard Cohen or Bob Dylan.
If it’s the latter, well…I dunno. Seems sort of cynical and “too cool for school” for me.
Or do you not like the arrangement of the song (I kind of get that sense when you say, “slow piano ballad”, “melody is somnolent”)?
Whatever the case may be, I really was just curious. The PC comment confused me because there wasn’t any lyric like, “physically-challenged”- this or “Native American”-that but it sounds like when you said PC you meant “middlebrow patriotic”.
Not sure what I think of the song tell you the truth. But to me music is entirely subjective, maybe you feel more empowered to speak authoritatively on music for some reason unbeknownst to me…
Sorry if this distracted from your back-n-forth…
Ollie: that the lyrics are just plain awful, they are a string of cliches, and of the worst PC sort. Then, to add that in w the footage only heightens the dissonance, esp. since the modern song is so out of place and anachronistic reliefed against the images. The Marsalis score was atrocious.
It’s interesting, some earlier comments overlooked a detailed analysis of a scene, and claimed I was being glib, and here I sum up a gripe rather specifically, with too letters (PC), and it needs explanation. This is a problem of emotive-based criticism- either one blinds oneself to rational thought, or swings to the other end, where I might next have to explain what cliche means.
As for piano ballads- Satie was a God with the piano. It’s not slow piano ballads, but that slow ballad, mixed with the PC lyrics to produce the worst sort of forced melodrama. That belongs on All My Children, not a war doc.
‘Whatever the case may be, I really was just curious. The PC comment confused me because there wasn’t any lyric like, “physically-challengedâ€- this or “Native Americanâ€-that but it sounds like when you said PC you meant “middlebrow patrioticâ€.’
Sigh. There are far broader ranges of the term than just hyphenates Americans. Anything that indulges in false melodrama, weepy-feel good psychobabble, Oprahesque guruism, or insincere attempts at patriotism (think the end of Saving Private Ryan- ‘Tell me I’m a good man!” is PC.
‘But to me music is entirely subjective….’ Nothing is entirely subjective, for if something were entirely subjective, yuo would not be moved to comment on it, therefore you have an objective center to your opinions. Whether right or wrong, it is not all subjective.
thx. I think this last comment of yours is a much much better critique. Now I understand that:
1. You thought the lyrics were poor.
2. In the context of the film, it was distracting because the modern sound of the song clashes with footage that’s 60 years old.
3. You felt like that part of the film was ham-fisted in trying to illicit an emotional response from the watcher.
Those are all fair comments and a lot more illustrative than the original text. I’ve never heard PC used in the context you chose (maybe “manipulative” or “contrived”?)
I think you got the last part backwards though, where you say that if something were entirely subjective, I wouldn’t be moved to comment on it.
If something were entirely objective, i wouldn’t be moved to comment on it. If you post, “2+3 = 5″ well, that is the end of it; you’re right. Doesn’t make any sense for me to post a rebuttle.
But, if you post “ABBA IS EUROPE’S GREATEST GIFT TO MODERN MUSIC” well, that’s pretty subjective and I’m definitely inclined to post my own (subjective) opinion about that.
I do understand your critiques of the song in the context of the film and I while I didn’t have the same reaction, I understand your perspective.
In terms of the song itself, I don’t think the lyrics are profound but I thought it was arranged and performed well. I know you were probably using hyperbole, but if you’ve watched any of the last 4 or 5 years of American Idol, I’m pretty sure you’d know that it’s not even in the same stratosphere, much less a rung or two above American Idol auditions. Guess it’s sort of a subjective thing though…
oops, hit Post too soon:
I was gonna say:
I’ve never heard PC used in the context you chose (maybe “manipulative†or “contrivedâ€?) but since you’ve clarified, it’s sort of stupid to argue semantics and denotations; I get what you mean…
‘I think you got the last part backwards though, where you say that if something were entirely subjective, I wouldn’t be moved to comment on it.’
No, because if all is subjective then there’s no use in detailing nor arguing your experience since it will necessarily be different than A, B, and C’s experience.
If a song- say, ‘Norwegian Wood’ by the Beatles, is entirely subjective, then your loving it, A’s hating it, B’s yawn, and C’s claim that it is about the building of a birdhouse, are all equally valid. That only one might objectively correct means that you can convincingly demonstrate why your view is correct, therefore it is worth arguing over.
Because something is objective certainly does not mean that another percipient will acknowledge that- think the 7 Blind Men and the elephant. You are sighted, and have to convince each of the blind men that they are only partly right.
As for the AI comment, I’ve watched it since the end of Season 1. The comment is apt. Norah Jones is ridiculed even by music critics, who call her Snorah. She’s one of the worst vocalists out there. Billie Holliday she ain’t, and Holliday, from that era, would have been more apt.
[...] Guest DVD Review: Ken Burns’ The WarThe Moderate Voice - 2 hours agoBy Joe Gandelman NOTE: The Moderate Voice runs guest voice posts from time to time. One of the most popular guest voices is Dan Schneider, who does guest …The War ends on TV, opens on disc Video Business (subscription)Ken Burns: The War-Part 3 411mania.com'The War' box set has many extras St. Louis Post-DispatchEdmonton Sun - Washington Timesall 43 news articles Copyright © 2007, DVD Faqs | Theme based on design by haran and converted by John Hesch. [...]
[...] Guest DVD Review: Ken Burns’ The WarThe Moderate Voice – Department in November, 1967, when Johnson announced that he, (McNamara), would resign to become president of the World Bank Yeah, it was a movie star and a hippy-cum-political hack that lost the war. Henry: ‘“and women wd still be sexually [...]
[...] Guest DVD Review: Ken Burns’ The WarThe Moderate Voice – Department in November, 1967, when Johnson announced that he, (McNamara), would resign to become president of the World Bank Yeah, it was a movie star and a hippy-cum-political hack that lost the war. Henry: ‘“and women wd still be sexually [...]
[...] Guest DVD Review: Ken Burns’ The WarThe Moderate Voice – Department in November, 1967, when Johnson announced that he, (McNamara), would resign to become president of the World Bank Yeah, it was a movie star and a hippy-cum-political hack that lost the war. Henry: ‘“and women wd still be sexually [...]
[...] The Moderate Voice – Department in November, 1967, when Johnson announced that he, (McNamara), would resign to become president of the World Bank Yeah, it was a movie star and a hippy-cum-political hack that lost the war. Henry: ‘“and women wd still be sexually Read it here [...]
[...] Guest DVD Review: Ken Burns’ The WarThe Moderate Voice – Department in November, 1967, when Johnson announced that he, (McNamara), would resign to become president of the World Bank Yeah, it was a movie star and a hippy-cum-political hack that lost the war. Henry: ‘“and women wd still be sexually [...]
[...] Guest DVD Review: Ken Burns’ The WarThe Moderate Voice – Department in November, 1967, when Johnson announced that he, (McNamara), would resign to become president of the World Bank Yeah, it was a movie star and a hippy-cum-political hack that lost the war. Henry: ‘“and women wd still be sexually [...]