 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.98.175.238
In Reply to: Ken Burns documentary opinions please; the best and worst posted by grinagog on January 22, 2005 at 06:31:49:
...I have strong opinions about Ken Burns, none of them favorable.First: a creative filmmaker will generally apply an approach to his or her subject matter that evolves from the collision of subject and skill: what can I do that creatively harmonizes with my subject and that my skills and my collaborators can pull off.
However, let's look at several of Burns' best known pieces, The Civil War, Baseball, and Jazz. You have three subjects that are utterly different from each other but which are handled in virtually identical ways. So, he imposes an imaginatively limited style on all these subjects, and even in that basic sense performs an act of homogenization.
Second: the matter of control. A documentary film is normally an attempt to capture a reality that exists outside the mind and body of the filmmaker. I submit that one's approach should generally allow for the unexpected, and for the voices of others to have a kind of pride of place over the "voice" of the filmmaker. Yet Burns is a preternaturally controlling filmmaker. Just consider the fact that to represent the kaleidoscopic realities of Jazz, he made one very conservative and opinionated jazz musician the primary reference point for the film's ideas. And it was someone that he either began by agreeing with, or ended up agreeing with. A spectacularly greater and more illuminating range of perspectives on jazz would not have been hard to achieve, but it just ain't there. And, the last 40 years of jazz, arguably the most diverse, was barely touched on. Burns' explanations as to why may be the biggest creative copout I've ever heard. So, Burns carefully hones every word while making sure it cleaves to his own monolithic view, and in the end "Jazz" says a lot about what Ken Burns came to believe about Jazz, and much less what artists and other, more deeply committed students of the art believe about it. In the end he's just taken the contents of a very heavy & thick coffee-table book and put it up on your TV screen. There's little about what he does that's inherently "cinematic," whether that term is imagined in narrative or documentary terms.
Of course there are examples of very creative, very personal filmmaking (McElwee's "Sherman's March" for example) that are all about what the filmmaker thinks. But I don't think the Civil War, the history of baseball, and the first century of jazz qualify as the subjects of "personal" filmmaking!
Third, I've always resented the notion that Burns somehow came to define for many viewers, simply on the basis of the amount of attention he got/gets, that HIS approach is somehow normative for documantary creation. In fact the opposite is true. Historical filmmaking is not the most natural fit for a documentary in a basic sense. I mean think about it: isn't the most natural fit for a documentary something that's happening now and is documented as it unfolds? That sort of documentary is likely to be a bit scruffy, certainly not as controllable in its creation as Burns' films.
This is not to say that historical non-fiction films shouldn't be made, but I do think there's something wrong when such a fundamentally motion-less style of work becomes normative for something that's a subset of motion pictures.
I can probably admit that most documentarians NOT named Ken Burns feel a bit of sour grapes, because he's in a place where up to now he can apparently get funding for just about anything he wants to do. Meanwhile most of the rest of us stand in the wilderness with the recurring, sisyphean task of conceiving, proposing, and funding our own films without even a probability of success, much less a guarantee. But I can't recall a single documentarian I've spoken to who admires Burns for what he does.
Elliot Berlin
Follow Ups:
I would agree in that I would not call Burn's films "documentaries", for the same reason that I would not call Michael Moore's films "documentaries." Turn the camera on, let it roll, and force the subjects themselves to persuade to one side or the other.But why blame Burns if people call them "documentaries?" I suspect it is more about the need of the people who market them to catagorize them that anything Burns has said or done. People refer to them that way because there is a need to catagorize what they are, and because the style is similar to a "documentary", that is how they are labelled. If they were not labelled as such, where would you look for them in the video store. I have read musicians complaining that their music is placed in a section they do not approve. Well, they got to go somewhere.
Burns has said that when he began "Jazz", he knew nothing of the subject matter. He only learned about jazz from putting the film together. He did not conver the last 40 years of jazz? Funny, I have heard many critics complain that all current straight jazz players simply recycle. Read Downbeat lately? That opinion reflects many in the jazz community. You may not agree, and I would not, but because you do not agree does not make the film bad. In order to devote time to the 60's period forward, what should he have taken out? And if there were people who got turned on to jazz by the film, then I am happy, quibbles aside.
His style succeeds in presenting almost impossibly large subjects into manageable levels which can be presented as best as possible. I appreciate that he uses historians, the actual people who were responsible for the subject, and, in the case of the civil war, actual correspondence to paint the picture. Perfect? No. But there has not been a more informative film on Baseball. Field of Dreams was good, but I learned nothing. Glory was exhilirating, but again, I learned very little.
The point of his films is to educate, and flame curiosity in the subject matter, so that the viewer (hopefully) develops interest. I suspect that is all any filmmaker can hope to accomplish.
I hardly know where to begin in replying to your "defense" of Ken Burns. Let's just say I disagree both with your assumptions and your conclusions. The most bizarre line is "I have heard many critics complain that all current straight jazz players simply recycle." That's a ridiculous statement no matter which jazz "critic" said it, and I can only laugh at the suggestion that it sums up jazz since 1960 and justifies the lack of attention paid to it in "Jazz." I'm afraid you'll need a stronger forehand to bat the Ken Burns ball back into my court...I don't care whether his films are called "documentaries" or "bowls of tomato soup." I don't care for them even when I'm interested enough in the subject to watch them (I've only watched Baseball in detail).
Elliot
I am not defending Burns. He can do that well enough on his own. As I have said, his films are not perfect, and not necessarily the films I would make. My point of contention is that many of the complaints registered here are not necessarily complaints of Burns' doing, yet the attempt is made to belittle what he has done, as though he has represented that he is doing something other than what he has done. You blame him for calling his films "documentaries". I suspect that the term is used generically, largely by the persons who market his films. Clapton is found in the "pop" section of most records stores. Think he would call his work "pop?" Yet you blame Burns for having the term used to describe his work.You blame Burns for this concept that there has no relevant jazz after 1960. I say there has been. I do not know what Burns says. I know that there are musicians and critics, who are very learned, who would agree that there has not been original jazz after 1960, or maybe 1970. The point is that Burns did not create that viewpoint, yet you blame him for expressing it in his film (or at least, that is how you interpret it). Could it also have been that most people watching his films have been alive since 1960, and are probably more familiar with this period of history of jazz since that year. And that their knowledge prior to that date is less so, and Burns thought that focusing on the history prior to 1960 was more important. I suspect that you do not like Burns, for whatever reason, and ascribe ulterior motives to what may be sound decisions on his part. Marsalis has probably forgotten more Jazz than you and I will ever know, combined. While I may disagree with him, to dismiss his opinions out of hand is arrogant. Feel free to list your jazz credentials.
You spend most of your post writing about the Jazz film, then admit that the only one you watched closely was Baseball. As an ardent fan of the game and it's history, I must say I learned a lot. My precious Big Red Machine was given short shift, but, then, I already knew about them. What was the problem with Baseball? You would have done it differently? How?
You complained that Burns has somehow become known as the definition of the documetary genre. Whose fault is that? Burns? He makes the films, PBS Broadcasts them, then they are relesed on D.V.D. Exactly where in the process is Burns responsible for redefining the documetary genre? That he has become the definition of the genre is because most people see precious little documetaries. But that is not Burns' fault. Your critism of Burns has more to do with your opinions of him than your critism of his films.
But then again, you appear to be all about throwing barbs. What would you have done differently, in any of his films? What information in Jazz would you have removed in order to include the information which you believe to be so important? As a documentary filmmaker, I would think these questions should be relatively easy to answer.
Your latest note is taking on a bit of an angry tone. Maybe because of the way I replied to you last time. But...I'm afraid I still disagree. I'm not saying you're "wrong," but I definitely don't see it the way you do. That's not a problem is it?
I can tell you that for me Burns errors are both those of omission and commission. In my view, both are serious faults in this case. I *don't* think it's only a matter of terminology. I think he makes bad choices.
This "no good jazz after 1960" thing frankly drives me nuts. I realize you're not endorsing that position, just trying to lay it out there that serious commentators believe that. I honestly think that anyone who says that has their head up their behind. I know enough about jazz to *know* it's wrong. I don't care how "learned" they are; if they say that, to me they are know-nothings. This sounds harsh, but I can't say anything more gentle about it. Even if it's "no good jazz after 1970" I feel the same way. And so on.
Do I have to make it all explicit? I watched enough of "Jazz" and enough of "The Civil War" to make a reasoned decision that I did not want to watch them further. "Civil War" put me to sleep and "Jazz" pissed me off. "Baseball" pissed me off, too, but I wanted some of what I could take away from it so I stayed with it. I know enough about Jazz history so I didn't need it for basic content. I've listened to a lot of jazz and I've read a couple of histories. I would have watched it if it was better, more creative, somehow more *improvisational" in spirit. It is the antithesis of "improvisational."
Maybe Burns didn't "create" the viewpoint which you describe. But jeez! If he endorses it by putting it in a film like this, don't you think it becomes his responsibility?
Your guess that people have been alive since 1960 and so probably know more about jazz since then is a helluva wild guess; it's also a wildly innaccurate guess. It's commonly known not to be true. Jazz has been less popular and less well known since then, largely because the center of gravity of popular music shifted radically during the 50s and 60s. Add to that the restless, exploratory nature of a lot of post-60s jazz and you have a recipe for non-popularity. But a documentary called "Jazz" shouldn't represent only what's popular. It should represent...Jazz!!
Burns actually said why he didn't much cover jazz after 1960, and that wasn't the reason. He said it's because he's a "historian" and not enough time had gone by for later jazz to be "history." You may accept that as adequate explanation, but I don't for a second. I think Burns didn't "get" it, perhaps doesn't "like" it, and also may have decided including it could hurt the popularity of the series because of the relative unpopularity of post-bop jazz. Admittedly that's speculation, but is more supported by the evidence than your assumption which I criticized above. But whatever the reason, it's a deeply unfortunate lapse in a program that is basically put forward as a complete, definitive documentary.
Even if Burns felt inadequate to the task of documenting later jazz he could have hired another director to create the post-60s portion of the series. It's not uncommon for a series to be split among several directors. And plenty of non-fiction film directors wouldn't hesitate for a second if they had a chance to document the last 40 years of jazz history. Some of them may might actually have been able to begin by already knowing something about the music, and thus be able to operate on the basis of deeper, longer-maturing knowledge of the form.
Gosh...I've probably made you angry some more because of how intensely I disagree with some of what you said. I could continue, but...
...I give up.
I am not angry. Really. Honest. Burns makes films for people of limited experience. His goal is to educate. I think he succeeded. Persons who did not know about his subject undoubtedly know more after watching. They are certainly not perfect. I think that sometimes we view films or listen to music with a view of satisfying a filmmaker's eye, or an historian's eye.
I find it interesting that grinagog is looking forward to seeing a "Ken Burns" documentary rather than a documentary on baseball, the Civil War or jazz. It shows how much he has become a brand name, like someone saying, I want to see a "Hitchcock" or "Godard" film, or even a "Michael Moore" film. With brand names, it's not the subject matter that matters but the filmmaker's eye on the subject matter that people are looking to experience.I'm not sure that I agree with some of your criticism of Ken Burns, that part which I bluntly take as, he makes films that I don't think work as films. That is an cricism of the artistic use of the form and its cinematic virtue. But I think that to go down that path you may to apply the same criticism to a film like La Jetee, which is narration over a series of still pictures. I don't think I want to go down that path, else I'd have to say that Howard the Duck has more cinematic virtue than La Jetee.
I do side with you that if grinagog is looking to see a "Ken Burns" film because he wants to open himself to seeing a certain style of film, there are better choices for the documentary style. If he wants to learn something about the civil war, then maybe he is better sticking to Ken Burns than Sherman's March.
But there's something to think about in my saying that ... which is another part of your criticism, a part that I think is the more important one. It's how Ken Burns forces his position on the subject of his films. Documentaries in the past tried to avoid disclosing any self-awareness of the filmmaker's eye, and in the last twenty years it's become acceptable to relish in it. Films like Sherman's March do make it clear who the filmmaker is and that the film is in his voice and of his personal exploration of the subject matter. Documentaries today, like Sherman's March, are arguably more honest because they face that fact rather than try to hide it.
I would argue that it's dangerous to do what Ken Burns does, which is to give some air of official-ness to his point of view. Thank god he believes in racial equality and reinforces those themes in his films. That's easy to take as truth because we all believe in the same things. But what about his viewpoint about what's interesting about jazz? His viewpoint is expressed in his choice of who he covers. While people are nodding in agreement with his viewpoint that racial discrimination was bad in the '50s, he gets them to nod too that jazz kind of fizzled out after the '60s. There's a moral slippery slope in taking this manner of documentary filmmaking as honest, and a danger in how far one can push the line between reality and opinion. Now, I don't think Ken Burns would say that he's trying to hide the ball on the fimmaker's viewpoint in his films, but I do think that his films tend to soften that and pull the audience in as believers.
I find it a very strange circle. Grinagog wants to see a film because he wants to see a "Ken Burns" film, but his appeal is in making something that harks back to the old days when documentaries were seen as something that tried to hide the filmmaker's eye.
__________
One of these days I gotta get myself organizized.
Straight, No Chaser about the life of Thelonius Monk remains my favorite documentary and it's a USA production
Interspersing archival footage and interviews with the man himself, or those who were close to him, mostly done in an anecdotal manner
Not a hagiography; Monk is quite often not shown in a favorable light
The viewer is left to develop their own conclusions of the subject with the filmmaker doing a "disappearing act"
There is no heavy reliance on still photographs and what few are presented are relevant, similarly voice-over is relegated to a brief introduction
Topics such as racism are touched on (Monk loses his cabaret card for an offence he was not guilty of) but this does not become a hobby horse
This documentary covers a lot of ground; without becoming an overload, really well doneGrins
The music in "Straight No Chaser" is fabulous. Anoth great jazz documentary is "A Great Day in Harlem", about the making of the famous 1958 "Esquire" photgraph of all thos e jazz musicians standing on a brownstone doorstep in the moring.
In addition, his style was stolen from a series of historical documentaries that aired on NBC, I believe, in the very early 60s. I remember ones in particular on the West and on the Civil War. This would not matter that much except that he and his worshipers, the press, and PBS hyped this "Burns" style of historical documentary as something new and innovative when it was nothing of the sort. Now and in recent years we have been inundated with this type of historical TV documentary, in particular on the History Channel. Despite the fact that I am often keenly interested in the subject matter of many of these shows, I find them invariably unwatchable. The exceptions are almost always British productions.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
