Re: PBS
Posted: July 5th, 2009, 5:43 pm
Michigan, when Mr. O'Neil passed away, it was a week long period of mourning here in Kansas City. He was quite a gentleman.
https://www.silverscreenoasis.com/oasis3/
https://www.silverscreenoasis.com/oasis3/viewtopic.php?t=3471
Hey, Mich!MichiganJ wrote:
Not sure what's wrong with Ken Burns, but every few years or so I break out his Baseball documentary and still love it. The interviews with Buck O'Neil are priceless.
That's exactly what I did this winter. I started with The Civil War, and then went immediately into Baseball, which, as you said, is virtually seamless. One of the things I admire most about Baseball is all of the discussion about the "Negro Leagues", and I've been diving into books on the subject all spring and summer (By the way, the new Satchel Paige biography is a must read for baseball fans!)I've watched Burns' BASEBALL documentary all the way through several times and have always found something new and profound to dwell on. It's especially interesting to view directly after watching his exhausting but valuable film on the CIVIL WAR given the precise proximity of the beginning of the former and the conclusion of the latter. The virtually seamless overlapping of the two is fascinating to me.
I'm unsure about Burns' facts, inaccuracies, etc. I know that when we were dealing with grants from the NEH for a radio documentary, the NEH required us to have a number of Academics (that the NEH had to approve) who read each version of the scripts, making notes and corrections, etc. Lots of fun, especially when the Academics themselves disagreed on something (plus they added a great deal to the overall budget). Most of the documentaries I've seen by Burns have been told through correspondences and interviews, with remarkably little narration. Obviously these can be skewed and edited to say whatever one wants, as can any non-fiction work, be it biography, history, whatever. They are all "suspect" in that they all represent some point of view. While we like to think so, it's basically impossible for a journalist or documentarian to be unbiased. (Although I still don't believe the notion that the now undefinable "media" is liberal. But that's another matter.)Mr. Arkadin wrote:Since everyone is explaining their views (and I happen to be home for a brief moment), I guess I'll throw my hat in the ring.
Let me say that I've never seen Baseball, but will probably watch it someday as I have great interest in the early years. My problem with Burns is the inaccuracies in films I have seen. I don't think the man researches his subjects enough before shooting. In other cases, I think he depends too much on others point of view and lets them dominate his subject. He has also freely admitted that he injects bias along his personal political viewpoints. While we all have our own take on life, if you are attempting to be historically accurate, you want to try and be as true to your subject as you can--even if it doesn't benefit your own ideological views. This is certainly nothing new in history (check out early Egyptian battle history--they never recorded their defeats, only victories), but I personally get tired of people hailing Ken Burns as some kind of historian. He's not. He's a very talented filmmaker that has preserved some great people on film which are not with us anymore and generated new interest in subjects that many Americans previously thought were "dull" or "boring". In that respect, I feel he has done a lot of good.
Actually I live in Indiana (the MJ is for the froggy cartoon) but I feel your pain about celebrities in the midst. Every year, at the Indy 500, we have both Florence Henderson AND Jim Nabors. Utter mayhem..I just have demographic issues with how the man, as a local resident, has attempted to subjugate the towns of Walpole, NH & Rockingham, Vermont into his personal fiefdom.
That's all.
So, Mich, do ya think the Wolverine State would consider sacrificing a county or 2 to create a private duchy for the Marquis of Docudrama . . p'raps something near Detroit?
Yeah, I know . . in typical flash-of-brilliance style, it occured to me about an hour after posting where it was that you're nom du net really came from . . . swift, eh?MichiganJ wrote: Actually I live in Indiana (the MJ is for the froggy cartoon) but I feel your pain about celebrities in the midst. Every year, at the Indy 500, we have both Florence Henderson AND Jim Nabors. Utter mayhem..
There are whole books written in response/refute of his Civil War series. I believe there are still web links for his errors on Mark Twain. The list goes on and on. While I don't believe any single source can "get it right" (you should always depend on multiple sources), I can't help but notice the care that Burns spends on his images, voiceovers, and editing and wonder why he does not use that same talent for fact checking.MichiganJ wrote:I'm unsure about Burns' facts, inaccuracies, etc. I know that when we were dealing with grants from the NEH for a radio documentary, the NEH required us to have a number of Academics (that the NEH had to approve) who read each version of the scripts, making notes and corrections, etc. Lots of fun, especially when the Academics themselves disagreed on something (plus they added a great deal to the overall budget). Most of the documentaries I've seen by Burns have been told through correspondences and interviews, with remarkably little narration. Obviously these can be skewed and edited to say whatever one wants, as can any non-fiction work, be it biography, history, whatever. They are all "suspect" in that they all represent some point of view. While we like to think so, it's basically impossible for a journalist or documentarian to be unbiased. (Although I still don't believe the notion that the now undefinable "media" is liberal. But that's another matter.)
For me, a documentary works if I'm curious enough about the subject to research it further. Burns' doc on The Brooklyn Bridge led me to McCullough's fascinating book (which led me to other McCullogh books), Burns' (exhaustive) Jazz series, led me to rediscover Louis Armstrong (always liked him, now I love him), and I actually wish Burns would produce another "Inning" of Baseball. (Lots has happened in the past decade!) I don't think Burns thinks of himself as a historian. I certainly don't. He's a documentary filmmaker. Now, as to the definition of "documentary"...
ChiO" Baseball means nothing to me.
I'm a Cubs fan.
now THAT was funny.Baseball means nothing to me.
I'm a Cubs fan.