 
|
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 |
216.196.141.160
In Reply to: As a documentary filmmaker myself... (long) posted by EBerlin on January 22, 2005 at 17:43:00:
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.
Follow Ups:
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.
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 ]
