Yeah, I'm watching Jazz, and while I don't want to knock a good thing, I do feel that in this, and the Baseball series, Burns' political correctness has sapped some of the pure joy out of the subjects. He seems to have carried over the elegiac and slightly pious tone which was effective in the Civil War documentary, but here seems to put subtext ahead of text. Nat Hentoff, the venerable civil/human rights advocate, who will appear as a talking head in the series, had to point to this failing, in the course of promoting the series (from his yearly "Solstice Awards" in the Voice):
"Ken Burns
I forgive him now for distorting history in his documentary Not for Ourselves Alone:
The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. He entirely omitted
the fact that these foremothers of the feminist movement were vigorously, intensely
pro-life. They regarded abortion as men's further exploitation of women. Burns, as
he later told me, knew how they felt, but left it out. I said to Ken Burns that they
would have picketed him and his documentary if they were here.
But now, in Jazz, the 19-hour Public Broadcasting Service series to be aired in
January, Ken Burns has produced by far the most vital history, in any visual
medium, of the people who created this life force of a music. There is one grave
fault, however. He provides only 30 minutes or so for the last 25 years of jazz.
Geoffrey Ward, the writer for the series, has a festive companion book, Jazz: A
History of America's Music (Knopf). Seeing and reading Jazz should naturally bring
you to the remarkable, wide-ranging five-CD set Ken Burns Jazz (Columbia,
Legacy/Verve). But Ken Burns owes us at least another hour or two. Jazz is a
living art."
When you put your ideals, however noble, ahead of the truth, you cross the line from documentary to propaganda; from teaching to indoctrinating. Burns comes a little too close to that line for some tastes. I also find that the series is a bit heavy on the hagiography. We know Louis Armstrong was a genius, let's hear more about how he was a genius. But then, I went to school when formalism still ruled, and I guess I never quite got over it. That being said, the series is well worth watching, whatever its shortcomings. As Dave says, compared to most of what's on…I wouldn't watch Survivor with my eyes closed (although a mole might), but I'll try to stick with Jazz, which I expect will improve as it goes along, if only because the quality of the documentary sources will do the same.
Here is the current blah blah on KB's Jazz over at the WFMU message board. I hope that this faulty yet broad historical reading (series) is a starting point, providing (at least) a foundation for a more accurate read in the future.
Hagiography, that's an awfully specific word, and one I had to look up, but it does describe the Jazz series pretty accurately. And there's another good criticism in the recent New Rebublic and I'm greatful for all of it: the efforts of Ken Burns and everyone from the woodwork who is convinced they could have made it better. I wish they would. I'm afraid nineteen hours will just barely whet my appetite.
|
"Ken Burns
I forgive him now for distorting history in his documentary Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. He entirely omitted the fact that these foremothers of the feminist movement were vigorously, intensely pro-life. They regarded abortion as men's further exploitation of women. Burns, as he later told me, knew how they felt, but left it out. I said to Ken Burns that they would have picketed him and his documentary if they were here.
But now, in Jazz, the 19-hour Public Broadcasting Service series to be aired in January, Ken Burns has produced by far the most vital history, in any visual medium, of the people who created this life force of a music. There is one grave fault, however. He provides only 30 minutes or so for the last 25 years of jazz. Geoffrey Ward, the writer for the series, has a festive companion book, Jazz: A History of America's Music (Knopf). Seeing and reading Jazz should naturally bring you to the remarkable, wide-ranging five-CD set Ken Burns Jazz (Columbia, Legacy/Verve). But Ken Burns owes us at least another hour or two. Jazz is a living art."
When you put your ideals, however noble, ahead of the truth, you cross the line from documentary to propaganda; from teaching to indoctrinating. Burns comes a little too close to that line for some tastes. I also find that the series is a bit heavy on the hagiography. We know Louis Armstrong was a genius, let's hear more about how he was a genius. But then, I went to school when formalism still ruled, and I guess I never quite got over it. That being said, the series is well worth watching, whatever its shortcomings. As Dave says, compared to most of what's on…I wouldn't watch Survivor with my eyes closed (although a mole might), but I'll try to stick with Jazz, which I expect will improve as it goes along, if only because the quality of the documentary sources will do the same.
- alex 1-10-2001 5:05 pm
Here is the current blah blah on KB's Jazz over at the WFMU message board. I hope that this faulty yet broad historical reading (series) is a starting point, providing (at least) a foundation for a more accurate read in the future.
- bill 1-10-2001 8:47 pm [add a comment]
Hagiography, that's an awfully specific word, and one I had to look up, but it does describe the Jazz series pretty accurately. And there's another good criticism in the recent New Rebublic and I'm greatful for all of it: the efforts of Ken Burns and everyone from the woodwork who is convinced they could have made it better. I wish they would. I'm afraid nineteen hours will just barely whet my appetite.
- jimlouis 1-17-2001 3:09 am [add a comment]
i liked that new republic article too and hagiography was an apt description. and yes an hour long weekly jazz program would be in order and it should be better.
- dave 1-17-2001 3:16 am [add a comment]