Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by EBerlin (A) on January 24, 2005 at 17:23:32

In Reply to: Re: A strange "rebuttal"... posted by jamesgarvin on January 24, 2005 at 13:19:22:

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.