A Masterpiece of War?
Ken Burns' long-awaited World War II epic, The War, airs tonight on PBS. Jules Crittenden calls the 15-hour documentary mandatory viewing, even if it might be a "magnificent failure."
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Homer sang the Iliad. Josephus wrote the Jewish War. Norman women stitched the Bayeux Tapestry and Snorri Sturluson committed the Norse war sagas to verse. Shakespeare wrote Henry V.
All masterpieces of war. Now comes Ken Burns’ long-awaited, much-heralded World War II epic, “The War.” Stirring, poignant, tragic, stunning and shocking. Informative and insightful. A magnificent failure.
We’ll start with the “failure” part. Not having 15 hours like Burns did, we’ll keep this short and sweet.
To narrow the vastness of America’s World War II experience, Burns zeroed in on four towns. Mobile, Ala., Sacramento, Calif., Waterbury, Conn., and Luverne, Minn. This was not the only limitation Burns placed on himself, but he acknowledges his mistake by bolting across his own line to cherrypick from a few other places, Honolulu, Pasadena, Calif., and Waltham, Mass. Burns cut himself off from a choice of the best stories American has to offer. He’d have done better to let people and history, not places, be his guide. His gimmick, with its exhaustive scene-setting, was artificial and it doesn’t work.
Burns wanted to make a film about how ordinary people experienced the war, and that’s what he did. The great leaders and generals who guided their fates, the obstacles those leaders surmounted, the resourcefulness they displayed in their task, barely get lip service.
It wasn’t Burn’s goal to portray that. But it’s a critical omission. A 15-hour effort like “The War,” by a master of the form, won’t be repeated soon. With a school curriculum ready to go, “The War” could shape understanding of World War II, the epic contest of our time, for generations to come.
“The War” doesn’t celebrate triumph over adversity. Of course, it documents the grunts who managed to pull themselves out of muddy holes and push forward to certain death, and the struggle of blacks, Latinos and Japanese Americans to transcend hatred. But the war as an uncertain entity guided by determined leaders such as Roosevelt, Marshall, Eisenhower, Nimitz and even those field commanders such as Patton, is mentioned in passing when it is mentioned at all. Leaders, it would seem, are more often uncaring bumblers. We are denied the intimate portraits of wartime greatness Burns explored so well in his epic “The Civil War.”
Instead, “The War” is a death-obsessed dirge, dwelling on the ugliest parts of war, more interested in folly than success. Even extraordinary heroism gets short shrift. “The War” is about the meat grinder and the dutiful submission of good citizens to their fate. Victory is presented as an almost foregone conclusion, threatened only by the foolish mistakes of generals. Victory is only a death-ridden slog away, as long as Americans are willing to make that slog, despite their leaders’ shortcomings. The brief references to those leaders, their maneuvers and deceptions, their calculations and adjustments in strategy, are just a backdrop to the common man’s tale … which in “The War” fails to include the contributions of thousands upon thousands who toiled in other places than the factories and the front lines to which Burns limits his view. Burns takes his 15 hours and leaves us with a truncated view.
In technical matters, often banal commentary could have been greatly improved by editing. The artful string music is often a distraction and poorly connected to the action. Interviews appear to have been inexpertly conducted, to judge by answers that suggest the most common question was “How did you feel?” That one stereotypic question, any professional can tell you, is least likely to cut to the heart of the matter. A dearth of choking up on the part of veterans of heavy combat in these interviews suggests they were not well encouraged to take us to the worst places they know.
But let’s talk about the magnificence. It is there is abundance. Never-before-aired footage and still photography, and Burns’ expert cinematic editing, offer an unparalleled view of combat, instantly recognizable as unfiltered, front-line action. It is a reality the best filmmakers, despite their game efforts, may never be able to reproduce. The work of military combat cameramen, many of whom died to produce it, is stunning and often horrifying, but always magnificent, perhaps the best possible tribute to all those who fought and those who died.
“The War” similarly is at its best in portraying the zeitgeist of World War II America when it falls back on contemporary newspaper columns, letters, photos and newsreels, which at the high points substitute for narration. A small-town Minnesota newspaper editor’s columns and Ernie Pyle only highlight the inadequacy of that narration. More would have been better.
And then there are the stories of the common people. Despite the limitations imposed by Burns’ four-town gimmick and the failings of the interviewer, they stab at the heart.
It is may be impossible for any teller to botch the tale of the greatest war ever to blight the face of the earth. And “magnificent failure” may be too harsh a label to slap on “The War.” Maybe it is better to say, as a success, it is OK.
“The War” is, however, mandatory viewing this week. Despite some of the choices he made, Ken Burns is a master. You’ll learn from his work. You’ll be inspired by it. You’ll be haunted by it.
It just could have been so much more.
Read more Jules Crittenden at Forward Movement, where he is hosting a paid ad for “The War.”
“The War” is a seven-episode series starting Sunday Sept. 23 at 8 p.m.-10-30 p.m. on PBS, and continues through Wednesday. It resumes Sunday Sept. 30, through Tuesday Oct. 2.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
14 Comments
Fred Beloit:Ken Burns turned the history of baseball in America into a biography of Jackie Robinson. That’s fine if one were not especially interested in the history of baseball in America. If I didn’t respect Jules so much, I wouldn’t even try to watch one of these episodes. I’m interested in WWII.
Sep 23, 2007 - 5:22 am Increase Mather:Fred: Exactly. I was so impressed with his Civil War series I could hardly wait to see his series on Baseball. It was filled with such liberal bias and talking points regarding race and left out so much Baseball it made me wonder what he’d left out of the Civil War.
What is it with Marxists? Hasn’t the way the 20th century played out taught them anything?
Sep 23, 2007 - 6:41 am william jonas:I won’t be watching for personal reasons.( Cowboys-Bears) For those who lived through it, it hardly seems necessary to retell a few miniscule events through todays biased perspective. It is better to read or watch a detailed analysis of one campaigh or battle.
Sep 23, 2007 - 6:53 am David Thomson:Some events become glorified and magnified ( Pearl Harbor, D Day Hiroshima) while other equally important contributions are overlooked. For example the early serialized Victory at Sea was excellent even though it was obviously pro Navy. The editing and commentary in that series was powerful and the production was as balanced as one could hope.
The press has in recent decades has forgotten Gen. Mc Arthur.They have always hated his achievements
and sought to destroy him when they could .I would be surprised if they say anything good about the man or even mention him at all.
Mark me in the don’t care for PBS column.
I have a previously scheduled engagement so I will wait until it comes out in video. Ken Burns is something of a left-wing ideologue. Still, the programs are worth seeing as long as one makes allowances for his biases.
We should also not take it for granted that anyone under forty years of age knows much about WWII. Even graduates of our “elite” schools are often historically illiterate. Do you doubt what I say? Well, do yourself a favor. You merely need to speak briefly to these individuals—and the odds are very high your jaw will drop to the ground. By the way, this is a major reason why the Holocaust denial idiots are sometimes taken so seriously.
Sep 23, 2007 - 12:39 pm heather:Ever since I watched Burns’ Civil War series, I have written him off as a whiney liberal. I could not believe that people actually watched the WHOLE thing, listening throughout to that sad voice and mournful tune (it just kept repeating itself, didn’t it??), and then get up and be PLEASED that they had ‘experienced’ the whole thing. Maybe it’s all about thinking ‘high culchoor’ is all about being glum???? That to be deeply sensitive, you must be seriously sad and depressed?
Sep 23, 2007 - 12:47 pm DD:I don’t doubt Jules Crittendon’s critique of “The War” by his own standards; yet I was struck by Ken Burns’ assertion (in an interview on PBS) that he was basically out to capture not so much the facts of the war as a historical event, but its impact as an emotional one. Mr. Crittendon’s review is like my brother-in-law physician’s view of alternative medicine. His poo-poo of alternative medicine is right on the money given his “measuring stick” in viewing the body as a blood-based chemical plant; yet the efficacy of alternative medicine is nonetheless right on the money given a different “measuring stick” in viewing the body as an electrically-based power plant. Both are true. Discounting the other’s point of reference is like working a jigsaw puzzle using half of the pieces. I wonder what Mr. Crittendon would have written about “The War” had he seen that Ken Burns interview.
Sep 23, 2007 - 3:21 pm Fred Beloit:Watched the first episode. A lot of face time for so few witnesses. One said he could see the smile on a Japanese fighter pilot’s face as the pilot loosed his weapon on this witness on the ground, an impossibility. Is Burns so ignorant of air war reality that he let this BS into his documentary, or did he let it in for show business reasons? Either way Hillery’s “willing suspension of disbelief”, a technical term applied to works of fiction, would apply here.
Sep 24, 2007 - 6:29 am John Rich:Watching the first episode, I was struck by Burns’ myopic view of the war.
His view is the by-now standard postmodern approach of applying current standards to what time has rendered into a foreign country: the United States in the early 1940s.
Perhaps the most egregious bit was one veteran proclaiming that it wasn’t patriotism that motivated the young men to join the service, it was the wish to change their lives.
There’s no doubt that many farmboys, miners, factory workers and others, saw a chance to leave what might have looked like a permanent Depression behind. But I’ve known more than a few veterans, and love of country was right at the top of any list of their reasons for joining the fight.
I’m not going to waste any more time with Ken’s opus. So far, the absolute best view of WWII in all of its glory and horror remains the adaptation of Stephen Ambrose’s Band of Brothers.
Sep 24, 2007 - 3:04 pm dougf:Methinks some people here are not watching the same show that I am. And since I am posting at PJM, I am probably not all that ‘progressive’.
Just because Burns is presenting a micro view of the War, does not mean that it is per se somehow defective. Just smaller .
I have now watched two episodes and I think it is a very fine effort. It does not engage in any form of equivalence, does not ‘blame’ the good guys, and merely presents the War’s effect on a select few ordinary people amidst the general conflagration. It is not HOORAH in tone but it is HONEST. Is that wrong, somehow ?
I despise the ‘modern’ outlook as much as the next guy, but these critiques seem very much over wrought. And on one small point, the whole series does not present the view that it “wasn’t patriotism that motivated the young men to join the service, it was the wish to change their lives.” That was mentioned by one honest guy in nowhereville, mid-west,and was probably 100% accurate. When you are young, it must have seemed like a grand adventure. Is that a dishonest portrayal ? Does everyone think that everyone who worked in a war factory was motivated by love of country alone rather than love of cash ?
Save the ammo for the truly deserving. You know people such as Brian De Plama for example. Now he really IS a d*******.
Not Ken Burns. He just makes good flics.
Sep 24, 2007 - 6:34 pm Fred Beloit:“Not Ken Burns. He just makes good flics.” Sorry, dougf, but so does Brian De Palma, so does Oliver Stone. But at least, though the films by these two are often taken as history, they are clearly works of fiction. Burns presents himself as a kind of historian of emotions. “TIME cries and makes you care.” I’m a little sad you are buying it.
Sep 25, 2007 - 7:09 am MikeH:If you want to catch a great WWII color documentary that was made contemporaneously, check out the DVD for “Report from the Aleutians.”
http://www.amazon.com/Report-Aleutians-Hook-Down-Wheels/dp/B00005B1YE/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-9816591-6308765?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1190742070&sr=8-2
Yeah, it concerns a “backwater” theater (the Pacific Aleutian chain), but the American can-do attitude, that used to be so widespread in this country, comes through loud and clear. It doesn’t avoid death, but the focus is on meeting the challenges. I’ll take this over any WWII doc made today, Ken Burns or not.
Sep 25, 2007 - 10:46 am Fred Beloit:Well, last night I watched the third episode, and my last investment of time in this hopeless cause. What do you know; Burns has turned the emotional history of WWII into the biography of Daniel Inouye (see first comment above). “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Yes indeed. Sorry, Jules, you were wrong for once.
Sep 26, 2007 - 5:59 am dougf:OK, I have watched all three episodes thus far and I have to confess that I am now at the WTF stage. Perhaps a little late but still.
I understood the emphasis of the Internment Issue AND the Racial Issue in the first and maybe the second episode. It was a fair presentation of important issues, but last night was a bridge too far for me. How much time in a series about a global WAR, needs to be spent on Ken’s private ‘needs’?
Burns IS obsessed with re-telling the same-o, same-o ‘liberal’ guilt trips, and he IS absolutely ruining this production. Enough was more than enough. I have now officially seen more than enough of the ‘back-of-the-bus’ diatribes, AND the Internment Issue.
Apologies to all who recognized his technique earlier than I. He seems to be incapable of any form of ‘proportionality’, and his work suffers immensely from the lack.
Too bad. This could have been a great series.
Sep 26, 2007 - 7:44 am D Bond:If a person sets out to say something, it’s their creation. No one else has a right to come along to say the creator should have made it differently. Burns chose to do it his particular way. Those aspects are his alone to critique. This kind of criticism has a tacky sense of “me-to-ism” that is presumably unworthy of the critic.
Sep 26, 2007 - 10:10 pm