Ken Burns 'The War'

Batutta

Batutta

Major Contributor
I really didn't think I needed to see any more WW II related stuff, but I immediately got caught up in this. What it does, and what Ken Burns usually does so brilliantly, is give you an idea of what war is like for the everyday person. This really put me in the context of what the situation was at the time that led to the war, framing it more clearly than I had previously seen. The personal stories of Bataan were also chilling, and will make me think twice before I complain about anything in my life. This is playing all month on PBS, so I'd catch it if you can.
 
Last edited:
Caught the first one last night/this morning with my lady...
Good stuff. REALLY poo pooing good stuff.

I have always been an uberWWII buff, but I learned quite a few tidbits that I never knew, and saw some footage that was likewise new to me.

Ken Burns does it right...he is a true documentary filmmaker, one of the last of a dying breed that does not let his personal views muddy the subjective waters...
unlike other contemporary "documentary" filmmakers (not to mention any naMMes) who not only muddy the proverbial waters, but cause catastrophic valdezesque oil spills into them.

Anyway, don't wanna unleash that pandora's box into this thread...

I can't friggin wait for the second issue of "The War" tonight on PBS.
 
The War

The War

I saw the first episode last night, really well done. Does anyone know how the interviews were setup? It appears that they may have been done with green screens??
 
'Really well done' was the words I told my wife last night about "The War" Did you hear Tom Hanks in there talking?

I like reading about WWII and watching movies but this really does a great job of explaining the war. I hope the rest is as good as last night.'
 
ghammons said:
I saw the first episode last night, really well done. Does anyone know how the interviews were setup? It appears that they may have been done with green screens??
Click to expand...

Didn't look that way to me. Looked like a natural setting with the subject lit by kino's or a close soft lgiht.

wit_quentin_aanenson.jpg
 
Yeah, I heard Tom Hanks...he read a letter/newspaper article or two. He is (obviously) very passionate about this subject matter
 
I know alot of people really enjoy Ken Burns, so I am not here to knock him just because I am not a fan of his techniques.

It is a mischaracterization, however, to label him as a "true documentary filmmaker". There is far too much redramatization happening for him to be fall into this category. Recreating sound effects with foley work, dramatized readings of others' words, and his subjective panning over photographs, paintings, and letters eliminate the possiblility for direct cinema. Plus, he is recreating events that happened long ago, never following them as they happen, which is one of the prerequisites.

Burns would tell you himself that he doesn't fall under the category of a pure documentary or direct cinema.

Frederick Wiseman would be one of the best, if not the best, example I could think of for pure documentarian. Here is a qoute from the museum of Broadcast Communication that describes Wiseman's approach:

"Wiseman's aesthetic falls squarely in the "direct cinema" tradition of documentary filmmaking, which emphasizes continued filming, as unobtrusively as possible, of human conversation and the routines of everyday life, with no music, no interviews, no voice-over narration, and no overt attempt to interpret or explain the events unfolding before the camera."
 
Documentaries, and their makers, can tell good stories you know (as can history teachers)


Edit:
Good storytelling techniques are not mutually exclusive with efforts to maintain a subject's integrity
 
Last edited:
CallaghanFilms said:
Documentaries, and their makers, can tell good stories you know (as can history teachers)

As can anybody who wants to tell a story. But classifying Burns as a true documentarian is at odds with his approach. He retells history. I am not talking about whether he tells a good story or not, but how he documents it.

Edit:
Good storytelling techniques are not mutually exclusive with efforts to maintain a subject's integrity
Click to expand...

As can anybody who wants to tell a story. But classifying Burns as a true documentarian is at odds with his approach. He retells history. I am not talking about whether he tells a good story or not, but how he documents it.

A subject's integrity is compromised. There is no way of getting around this, because he wasn't there to document the event.

Again, this isn't about good/bad etc, but classification of Burns' style. I like countless documentaries where the subjects' integrity is compromised, but that doesn't mean that it is true in form.
 
It is impossible to make a film without a subjective point of view. The minute you aim the camera at something, you are choosing what to show an what not to show. The minute you make an edit, you are manipulating reality. No documentary is ever completely 'true', it is always one or many person's interpretation of events.
 
But you canoot throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a colossal difference between someone who gets as close as you can possibly get to direct cinema like a Frederick Wiseman who focuses in on a narrow target, versus someone who retells WWII with various aids. Huge difference.
 
I wouldn't call it a colossal difference. Wiseman still has to point the camera somewhere, therefore, he's giving you his viewpoint. As a matter of fact, because Ken Burns is making a collage out of pre-existing footage from viewpoints not his own, he is probably painting a fuller more objective picture of events than if he went out and shot everything himself...But I don't want to get into a semantic argument about what is and what isn't a documentary. I think ultimately people look at and listen to works of art because it shows them another person's condensed point of view. They don't want to see 'unfiltered' reality, they want someone to distill or distort reality to a specific comprehendable form that gives them an impression of someone else's experience.
 
Last edited:
Tom Hanks is doing the voice of a newspaper reporter in Minn

My wife won't watch war stuff at all, but she has watched two nights of this now and likes it!!

Must be the "Ken Burns Effect" !
 
The real Ken Burns effect is how he humanizes his subject. I have The Civil War and Baseball. I've also seen the one about Jazz. All three of those are excellent and required viewing (to me). I'll be picking this set up as soon as it's available next week.
 
So far, I've just seen the first two episodes. If you don't find at least four stories in it you're not trying. If you don't get misty a couple of times, you're not human.
 
I'm not a huge fan of Burns either. I work for a primetime PBS series, and you'd be surprised how many of my colleagues think his content is fascinating but his presentation is downright boring. My opinion is that his style of storytelling has plenty of merit, but is more suited for a literary medium than an audio/visual one.
 
Eastside Parkway said:
I'm not a huge fan of Burns either. I work for a primetime PBS series, and you'd be surprised how many of my colleagues think his content is fascinating but his presentation is downright boring. My opinion is that his style of storytelling has plenty of merit, but is more suited for a literary medium than an audio/visual one.
Click to expand...

I like his straightforward presentation. It's a nice antidote to the overwrought audio visual assaults were subjected to by advertising and the movies these days. You don't have to be flashy if your subject is fascinating.
 
I simply cannot state how GREAT this was. I started watching it and couldn't stop. It's amazing how emotionally moving Burns was able to make it. This is simply the best WWII doc I have ever seen. Band of Brothers is a great narrative companion. I hope they make a Pacific Theater version of Band of Brothers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top