Ken Burns' "The War"

[Victoria]

Anyone here been watching this epic multi-part series on World War II on PBS? It lasted over 2 weeks in the telling.

Let me say, it was a great effort. I liked it a lot.

The key people who he portrayed, from Sacramento CA, Luverne MINNESOTA, Mobile ALABAMA, and others were fantastic. I think the Phillips family, brother and sister, were my favourites. They still had some of the bounce of their youth, though each must be nearing 85.

But it wasn't like his seminal Civil War, or even the one about baseball which I enjoyed the HECK out of. I wonder if this was just my opinion, or if anyone who caught it, feels the same?

In short, the series lacked something undefineable...not a sense of immediacy, or of suffering, it certainly didn't have bragadoccio because Burns isn't about that. Nor was it defeatist/pacifist, or did it inject any modern-day feelings about war.

I wish I could put my finger on what was missing, if it was. Let me just say, I "love" World War II, but I'd sooner buy Burns' Civil War epic, than this one. I dunno. Maybe it was missing Shelby Foote.

BTW, the ratings were off the chart for PBS:

"An estimated 15.5 million viewers tuned in to the 8:00 – 10:30 p.m. premiere of Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s World War II film, THE WAR, last night on PBS, according to John Boland, PBS Chief Content Officer. The Gross Audience for the first night, which includes repeat airing from 10:30 p.m. – 1:00 a.m., drew an estimated 18.7 million.

"In key markets, THE WAR garnered even higher ratings, reaching an 11.3/17 in Minneapolis/St. Paul, 10.6/17 in Seattle, 8.4/15 in San Francisco, 8.1/13 in Sacramento and 6.7/11 in New York City."

(6.7 in NYC...)

From: http://pressroom.pbs.org/documents/war_ratings

Info on the series: http://pressroom.pbs.org/programs/the_war

[doug]

I've watched all the episodes and, yeah, I tend to agree with you. While it is riveting and disturbing televsion, I'm not responding to it in the same way I did his epic Civil War series. I'm watching them all, but almost more with a sense of resignation than the eagerness with which I looked forward to the CW. I'm not sure what the problem is, but I think it may have something to do with being constantly bludgeoned with the brutality of the war, which has far more immediacy and impact because of the video footage vs. the photograph visuals in the CW. It's almost like I'm watching the same footage over and over, the only change being the setting: here Tarawa, there Normandy; here Pelileu, there the Bulge. What Burns does do is dispell the notion that WW II was the "Good" war; a necessary war, for sure, but as this series shows there wasn't much good about it. Nobility and sacrifice, definitely, but savagery on both sides, as you'd expect from something this prolonged and hideous. Tonight we get Okinawa and Hiroshima, so no reprieve here! Still, I have to say that althought I've watched a lot of WW II stuff and done a lot of reading about WWII, there was an impressive amount of information here that was new to me. The "message", or subtext, is not explicit at all, but as you watch you really can't help but draw comparisons between WW II which touched directly almost every American and the current mess in Iraq that affects so few of us in any direct or personal way. Bottom line for me: Burns has put together a stunning tour de force that makes you want to turn away from the screen but you can't. Still, there is something about the fundamental sameness of each episode (and maybe, given the kind of war WW II was, that's the idea) that has kept me a bit more detached than I was with the CW series.

Good thread. Thanks for starting it. I'm eager to see how other members weigh in.

[Victoria]

I've watched all the episodes and, yeah, I tend to agree with you. While it is riveting and disturbing televsion, I'm not responding to it in the same way I did his epic Civil War series. I'm watching them all, but almost more with a sense of resignation than the eagerness with which I looked forward to the CW. I'm not sure what the problem is, but I think it may have something to do with being constantly bludgeoned with the brutality of the war, which has far more immediacy and impact because of the video footage vs. the photograph visuals in the CW.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Doug.

I think you hit the nail on the head. It was a very un-Burns-like documentary because the moving images we got, replaced the almost comically-stereotypical "slow pan shot from bottom to top of old sepia-coloured photograph" which made him famous.

It's almost like I'm watching the same footage over and over, the only change being the setting: here Tarawa, there Normandy; here Pelileu, there the Bulge.

EXACTLY.

Considering how different were the theatres, you'd think they would stand out for their differentness.

Even if you say that "war is war" and war tends to be remarkably similar regardless of setting (anyone who has read Julius Caesar's own autobiographies of war knows what I am talking about), it was all alike...

What Burns does do is dispell the notion that WW II was the "Good" war; a necessary war, for sure, but as this series shows there wasn't much good about it. Nobility and sacrifice, definitely, but savagery on both sides, as you'd expect from something this prolonged and hideous. Tonight we get Okinawa and Hiroshima, so no reprieve here!

Well, I'm not so sure about that, not because I don't think it was the "Good War" (if ever there was a good war, this was it), but because my History background doesn't make me dewy-eyed about any war. Also, my grandfathers, serving on opposite ends of WWII..., never spoke about their EXACT war-time experiences, but I got enough from others to know the realities of war.

The bombing, the rationing, the horrible telegrammes announcing death, the relocation of civilians, war refugees, mutil

[ryyannon]

It sounds like Burns has Battle Fatigue: how many times can a film-maker jump through the same thematic hoop?

As for WWII not being 'the good fight' - What Burns does do is dispell the notion that WW II was the "Good" war; a necessary war, for sure - I'll just pretend I've misunderstood what I've just read here. Either that, or accept a level of nihilism that will allow me to blow my brains out (or even better, yours) without the slightest thought or remorse: idiot's delight.

Onto Iraq, Afghanistan....and beyond - you really can't help but draw comparisons between WW II which touched directly almost every American and the current mess in Iraq that affects so few of us in any direct or personal way.... suffice to say that the 'current mess that affects so few of us' is part of a larger picture that affects all of us - and will continue to do so - until we make some difficult and what may prove to be definitive moral choices.... difficult for us today because they are necessarily based on an 'old fashioned' system of morality (Oh man, not that again - I thought it was all dead and buried - that we had finally got rid of it) rather than offering the warm and fuzzy comfort of moral equivalency that we've all grown to know and love.

At the end of the day, one has to look no further than RWG itself, where the very existence of the forum has been subordinated to the idea of not hurting people's feelings, as in, 'hey if you want to contribute something that will permit us to pay the bills, that's fine...and if you don't, well that's fine too...just as long as we don't have to draw any lines in the sand and can still keep singing Kumbaya together' (ever notice how it's always the same contributors and choir?)

[Victoria]

It sounds like Burns has Battle Fatigue: how many times can a film-maker jump through the same thematic hoop?

Well, endless suspense films never hurt Hitchcock.

Obviously, Ken Burns is a masterful documentarist who deals in historical themes, unlike hacks like Michael Moore with their schlocky MTV-editting techniques, the better to get young'uns' attentions.

In this, and he is to be congratulated for that, Burns is the anti-Michael Moore. Slow, deliberate retelling of interesting topics covered through the prism of painstaking research -- that's some good stuff.

But not every documentary of his is going to be a homerun, just like not every Hitchcock film was amazing (Trouble with Harry, anyone?).

As for WWII not being 'the good fight' - What Burns does do is dispell the notion that WW II was the "Good" war; a necessary war, for sure - I'll just pretend I've misunderstood what I've just read here. Either that, or accept a level of nihilism that will allow me to blow my brains out (or even better, yours) without the slightest thought or remorseq: idiot's delight.

Easy, Ryy, easy. I'm sure that's not what was meant.

World War II is often seen with rosy-spectacles by many folk, especially Americans. What I'm sure the member meant is that we got to see that Americans killed, and fought with ferocious will, and were not knights in shining armour who never put a foot wrong during it all.

Case in point:

Do you know that the Hesse-Kassel princely family jewels were stolen by a lady US Army captain and her accomplice Colonel fianc

[ryyannon]

Well, endless suspense films never hurt Hitchcock. ....

But I don't think RWG is more politically correct than other places, else I wouldn't be here for a second. I hate PCness.

Come on, Vickey, you're comparing apples and oranges here: the painstaking techniques of filming and documentation involved in making the Civil War series is the antithesis of making a 'Hollywood' film with real 'stars' - particularly during the period during which Hitchcock was working - not to mention his own considerable prestige and the perks that came with it.

The very idea of having to go through all of that again - even for me, light-years away from Burns and any necessity of doing so - makes me want to immediately go back to bed: I'll bet he (Burns) sometimes dreamt of doing the whole WWII thing as a musical comedy, a kid's film, anythng except another war documentary

"But I don't think RWG is more politically correct than other places, else I wouldn't be here for a second. I hate PCness."

No, it's not, but it would be stupid to pretend that we're not knee-deep in it. Just as we're ankle-deep in my own idea of how things should be, or yours, or that of a number of other Comrade Replica Watch Collector Persons who regularly post what they think.

I wouldn't be comfortable here either if the forum was just one flavor, whatever that flavor was, including mine.

[Victoria]

No, it's not, but it would be stupid to pretend that we're not knee-deep in it. Just as we're ankle-deep in my own idea of how things should be, or yours, or that of a number of other Comrade Replica Watch Collector Persons who regularly post what they think.

I THINK I understood.

Yes, agreed, we all have our visions of what RWG is, or is inching along to be in the near future, based on observable patterns.

Now did THAT make sense?

I wouldn't be comfortable here either if the forum was just one flavor, whatever that flavor was, including mine.

Right, definitely.

Anyway, forums are too fluid, with people coming and going, to have any one stamp on it. I was reading RWG of February 2007 and man, has it changed.

And I'm sure when RWG is around in October of 2008, some smart aleck is going to say the same thing.

[ryyannon]

Well, now that that's settled, someone should get back to The Shortest Thread Ever to make sure that no one's been posting in it...

[Victoria]

A quick primer for those who don't know what Nielsen Ratings are or their numbers above mean (like me, until a moment ago). From Wiki:

"Nielsen Television Ratings are reported by ranking the percentage for each show of all viewers watching television at a given time. As of September 2006, there are an estimated 115.2 million television households in the USA. A single national ratings point represents 1%, or 1,152,000 households for the 2006-07 season. Share is the percentage of television sets in use tuned to a specific program. These numbers are usually reported as (ratings points/share). For example, Nielsen may report a show as receiving a 9.2/15 during its broadcast, meaning 9.2%, or 10,598,400 households on average were tuned in at any given moment. Additionally, 15% of all televisions in use at the time were tuned into this program. Nielsen re-estimates the number of households each August for the upcoming television season."

Wow, the numbers for this PBS (!) documentary were higher than I thought...

EDIT: I'm shocked to find out there are "only" 115.2 million TV households in the US, in a population of 300 million people. That's less than half of all US households having a TV set?? No way. Relatedly, in my home alone we have (counts) 6 TV sets!!

I know that Brazil has the highest ratio of population to TV-set owning in the world, at almost 93% of all homes in Brazil having one, even if it's B&W. I read that in Veja, a "Time" or "Newsweek" magazine which quoted IBOPE, the Gallup of their country.

[cornerstone]

EDIT: I'm shocked to find out there are "only" 115.2 million TV households in the US, in a population of 300 million people. That's less than half of all US households having a TV set?? No way. Relatedly, in my home alone we have (counts) 6 TV sets!!

TV households = homes with TVs. So your home = 1 TV household. Entire Brady Bunch = 1 TV household.

It must be kind of cool being Ken Burns now that he has his own trademark 'effect' built into just about every bit of video software. I mean, imagine his diary "went into work, loaded photos, pressed Ken Burns button."

I want a Cornerstone button. Just a big keyboard with one button marked 'do my shit for the day'

[Victoria]

TV households = homes with TVs. So your home = 1 TV household. Entire Brady Bunch = 1 TV household.

Yes, indeed. That's why I said "relatedly" so as not to suggest that we should be counted as 6 households, just because we have 6 TVs (7 including a tiny handheld Casio for hurricane season...).

It must be kind of cool being Ken Burns now that he has his own trademark 'effect' built into just about every bit of video software. I mean, imagine his diary "went into work, loaded photos, pressed Ken Burns button."

I want a Cornerstone button. Just a big keyboard with one button marked 'do my [censored] for the day'

Come again? What's this effect thingie?

[cornerstone]

My point about households is that the average US household has 2.6 people in it. 300 million people = 115.38 million households. 115.2 million of those have a TV in them. So that's not less than half - more like all of them, as you would expect.

The "Ken Burns effect" is the name given in a lot of video software to panning a still image, especially when the entire video ends up being panned photos - e.g his Civil War documentary.

[doug]

ryy.

For clarification, yes, WW II was a "good" war in the sense that we fought and defeated pure Evil, that our cause was, undeniably, a good one in every moral sense. My point was that perhaps "necessary" was a more accurate description in that, if any war ever HAD to be fought, it was this one. To echo a point made by another member in this thread, I think too many Americans look back and see ONLY "goodness" in our effort during WW II, ignoring the unconscionable treatment of African-Americans and Japanese-Americans by our government and many of our people. I think our disagreement here is more one of semantics than of substance; in the latter, we are, I'm sure, on the same page.

I thought the final 10 minutes or so of last night's final episode was heartbreakingly poignant.

[Pugwash]

Yes, indeed. That's why I said "relatedly" so as not to suggest that we should be counted as 6 households, just because we have 6 TVs (7 including a tiny handheld Casio for hurricane season...).

Not quite. There are way more than 115 million TVs in the US. A TV household is a dwelling with one or more TVs.

[eddhead]

ryy.

For clarification, yes, WW II was a "good" war in the sense that we fought and defeated pure Evil, that our cause was, undeniably, a good one in every moral sense. My point was that perhaps "necessary" was a more accurate description in that, if any war ever HAD to be fought, it was this one. To echo a point made by another member in this thread, I think too many Americans look back and see ONLY "goodness" in our effort during WW II, ignoring the unconscionable treatment of African-Americans and Japanese-Americans by our government and many of our people. I think our disagreement here is more one of semantics than of substance; in the latter, we are, I'm sure, on the same page.

I thought the final 10 minutes or so of last night's final episode was heartbreakingly poignant.

Real good points.

What made WW II a "good war" was the lack of public ambivalance over the necessity to fight. Prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, there was a great deal of public discourse on the approriateness of US intervention in what was percieved to be primarly European and Asian conflicts, but that all changed after the attack. What I think Burns did well, was portray a sense of common mission and purpose both within the military and on the domestic front. This is especially timely when considered in contrast to the Iraq war. I also think he did an excellent job of just plain story telling.

And I agree with your other point as well. Unfortunetly,what we often forget was the horrible mistreatment of African American comatants and Japanese-American citizens.

[ryyannon]

ryy.

To echo a point made by another member in this thread, I think too many Americans look back and see ONLY "goodness" in our effort during WW II, ignoring the unconscionable treatment of African-Americans and Japanese-Americans by our government and many of our people. I think our disagreement here is more one of semantics than of substance; in the latter, we are, I'm sure, on the same page.

Same book, same page.

[Victoria]

My point about households is that the average US household has 2.6 people in it. 300 million people = 115.38 million households. 115.2 million of those have a TV in them. So that's not less than half - more like all of them, as you would expect.

LOL! Clearly posting at night affects one's rationale. Good point.

The "Ken Burns effect" is the name given in a lot of video software to panning a still image, especially when the entire video ends up being panned photos - e.g his Civil War documentary.

Ahh, the days of early online Britannica. I swear I saw more of President Lincoln's feet than Mary Lincoln did.

[Victoria]

ryy.

For clarification, yes, WW II was a "good" war in the sense that we fought and defeated pure Evil, that our cause was, undeniably, a good one in every moral sense. My point was that perhaps "necessary" was a more accurate description in that, if any war ever HAD to be fought, it was this one. To echo a point made by another member in this thread, I think too many Americans look back and see ONLY "goodness" in our effort during WW II, ignoring the unconscionable treatment of African-Americans and Japanese-Americans by our government and many of our people. I think our disagreement here is more one of semantics than of substance; in the latter, we are, I'm sure, on the same page.

Definitely.

However, for every negative, I can show you a positive, especially as compared to the treatment doled out in other places.

In Brazil -- a country I know very well, having spent a chunk of my youth there --, ships full of Jewish refugees were pelted with rotten eggs, and sent back by orders of President Getulio Vargas (despite being a dictator, seen as a leftist by his countrymen). Many Jews were interned in camps in Rio Grande do Sul until the end of the war, despite the fact that Brazil wasn't in it until later when they went to Monte Cassino -- the only South American country to enter WWII, BTW.

In the UK, German cousins of the King were interned in camps and prisons until the very end of the war, a fate which almost befell his Aunt Beatrice (a daughter of Queen Victoria...) and her sister's daughters, simply because though they were 100% British by allegiance, they had all married Germans, save the eldest.

Though not interned, unlike Japanese-Americans whose country after all had bombed Pearl Harbour, thus accounting for the difference, Joe DiMaggio's parents had to present themselves to officials every week, something which happened to many Italian-born natives (as well as Germans) until Italy changed sides. One hears very little about that these days.

And integration in the Armed Forces was but a Potemkin village in such Armies like Brazil and Cuba at the time. To this DAY, there has never been a black Admiral in the whole of the history of Brazil. Only recently did they have their first black General...I doubt they would've let any black man fly a plane, like the Tuskegee Airmen did in the US at the time.

People in America have justifiable claims when they mention that not all was good in WWII.

But compared to other countries' histories at the time, man, you had it GREAT.

To have a conscience, and feel bad about certain things which happened is precisely something which should make you proud to be American -- it's what separates you from the Brazils and other countries who have yet to feel sorry for anything they did on an official level, let alone populist level. On the contrary, Brazilians blame Americans for so many things during that War...

But when people beat themselves over the head, thinking that fire-bombing Dresden or interning foreign aliens is equivalent to anything Hitler did, that is nonsense and post-modern revisionist tripe.

I thought the final 10 minutes or so of last night's final episode was heartbreakingly poignant.

Yes, there was one veteran in particular, the rosy-cheeked white-haired chap (still full head of hair, bless him!) who broke down because he rarely speaks of his WWII experiences.

And whichever vet from that war that you speak to, you'll get the same silent treatment on the topic. I used to think it was macho stoicism, which our generation simply doesn't have or need anymore. Now men blub as easily as women do, and part of me thinks that's okay.

But part of me admires the heck out of men who didn't discomfit their families with combat experiences which they could never understand, and would possibly misinterpret as whinging about such a noble war as WWII.

There is one exception. I used to do volunteer work as a kid whenever I visited my parents here in the US. I volunteered at Veteran's Administration Hospitals, as a candystriper.

I would go, fluff up their pillows, open their curtains and before you knew it, I'd be holding some WWII vet's hand in mine, as his eyes streamed in tears down his face, recalling his buddy who died in front of him, aged only 19.

That they apologised for letting their emotions get the better of them, something with respect no Vietnam veteran ever did to me, tells you something of the personality of a bygone era. I respected them the more for it.

And I cried too...

Didn't cry last night. That last chapter was indeed harrowing, especially Eugene Sledge's memoirs about the war. But maybe that's what was missing in this documentary -- a little more heart.

[doug]

Just watched last night's final episode a second time. Wow. Those final 5 or 10 minutes with Norah Jones's plaintive "American Anthem" (America, America, I gave my best to you . . .) in the background and the photos of all those young faces, one after the other. If that didn't put a walnut in your throat, you had to be comatose. Bravo, Mr. Burns.

[archibald]

I watched the whole thing, since my eighth grader was assigned to watch for History. My general impression that Burns has managed to a 12 hour long slightly above average Hisrtory Channel program. I thought the conceit of chosing a few towns was strained and obvious (Mobile for the African American "angle," Sacramento so he could talk about the internment camps, Minnesota was, I'd bet, so he could iinterview a fellow writer (Samuel Hynes is a well known professor @ Princeton, although Burns didn't mention that) as it was to "represent" the heartland. For an 8th grader it was very well done--not-too in depth, lots of eye candy (or quality kills, as my sone would say) but for anyone who's watched the History Channel or TLC a couple times, sort of run of the mill.

[Victoria]

For an 8th grader it was very well done--not-too in depth, lots of eye candy (or quality kills, as my sone would say) but for anyone who's watched the History Channel or TLC a couple times, sort of run of the mill.

Instead of my usual Family Guy at 9 PM I sat down to watch my other PBS station's documentary of "America in the 1940s".

It beats the Ken Burns documentary BY A MILE in terms of interviews, and recreating the atmosphere of the times. Wow, I'm shocked. I highly recommend any of you to watch this.

We had Tommy Dorsey, Frankie, jitterbugging teenagers, the draft (JFK was the 18th guy drafted in Frisco! I didn't know that, and I know EVERYTHING about him), and even just now, the story of a conscientious objector from South Carolina.

There were 34 million American males who were drafted in WWII, and only 217 conscientious objectors. He was one of them.

Though I absolutely hate what he did, the letter his dad wrote on his behalf because he was being sent to gaol -- saying that his other son was serving with pride in the Navy, but that this son had religious scruples, and he was proud of him too -- brought a tear to my eye.

No matter if I would die for the US if needed (and I would), I'd like to think I'd write that exact same letter for my kid too.

Next documentary is "The Depression".

Even though neither of these topics is cheerful, one about war and all its horrors, and the other, the worst of times economically for the world, there is a certain...unbelievable happiness...which radiates in these documentaries.

I love how remembering our youths makes us happy, even if we were miserable during it.

EDIT: HELLO! The Depression is about manic depressives, not about 1929-1939. WTF! LOL.

[Desuetude]

Called Bipolar, V