X-post from the OR forum: Just got back from Ken Burns' talk about his new doc, "The War" (WWII).

[BlueIris]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=174x4923

To air on PBS, beginning September 23rd at 8 p.m. And mark your calendars for it, folks, because it's going to be a-mazing.

The hour long "preview" we got tonight was incredible. I don't want to give out spoilers unless people are open to that, (if you are, post below) but I will say that from what I viewed, this fourteen-hour documentary may be the most orginial discussion about American experiences of WWII ever to air on television. I highly recommend it.

Burns was eloquent and charming, especially in the Q&A session after the talk, where he fielded a lot of excited inquiries, many from Oregon WWII veterans. He stressed that this new film is an attempt to show us "the good war" from a much more human perspective than American audiences are used to. He also stressed that what he tried to capture the most was certain elements of the war which are common to all wars (scared soldiers, the brutality of combat and the struggle to live with memories of combat after participating in warfare). One curious comment he made, though, was that the film (which entered its early pre-production phase in 2001) "doesn't have a political bone in its body." We'll see what comes of that.

The post-lecture talk only focused on current events a little, actually, and never really arrived at "politics," except for Burns' own passing mention of Iraq and his statement about documentaries, storytelling and society (which I loved) that "the only real communication occurs between equals." The less equality we have, the less we communicate to each other.

Anyway--set the TiVo, the DVR, whatever. This one is definitely worth your time.

[BlueIris]

1. Kick. nt

[BlueIris]

2. Kick (again).

Even if you have noo questions, please watch. It's gonna be keen.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Sounds long over due.

I'm sick of this history channel crap.

[BlueIris]

4. He admitted that he also felt it was "overdue."

But that his primary motivation was to provide a unique, factually accurate portrait of America's role in WWII. People had been begging him to do it since "The Civil War" was released. Apparently, the one statistic that he heard most often from the beggars was the one from 1997, (don't know source, sorry) alleging that 1/3 of graduating American h.s. students think Americans fought with the Germans in the second world war.

[NoPasaran]

5. Spoilers?

I'm okay with 'em. I already know how it ends.

[BlueIris]

7. ***SPOILERS BELOW***

Phew. Just had to get that out. I am the biggest spoiler whore who ever lived.

Okay: the documentary is broken up (I think) into nine episodes (Burns said it was extremely similar to the format for "The Civil War") and we saw excerpts from episodes 1, 4, and 7.

From the beginning, he said that he wanted the project to focus on those who served and their families. So, in Ken Burns' words, "If you were not in the service or were not waiting for a loved one to return from the service, you are not in our film." He picked four towns--Sacramento, CA, Luvern, Wisconsin, Mobile, Alabama, and Waterbury, CT--and told the stories of soldiers from those towns (through lengthy interviews with them) as well as residents from those towns who remained stateside during the conflict.

From the impression I got, there is a hefty emphasis in this documentary on the events that occurred during the war that still do not get enough recognition in our history books/classrooms today--Japanese internment, the Pacific theater, the Holocaust and let us just say, the unlovely (read: racist and clueless) feelings both soldiers and Americans who didn't serve had about "the enemy," then and now.

The cinematography is stunning. One thing that struck me right off the bat was how much color is in this one. A lot of the period footage from the battlefields and post-battlefields is in technicolor--not sure how Burns managed that, actually. The interviews of the various soldiers (I think there are only four men he focuses on in the doc, but there may be more) are conducted in richly colored settings.

Other things about format that I thought were interesting: apparently, we go from Pearl Harbor in episode 1 or two to Normandy in episode 4 or 5 (I think it's 4). There's a parallel there which Burns said he thought was "fitting" between "The War" and "The Civil War," in which the pivotal "Gettysburg" episode takes place during the fourth episode. That only disappointed me a little, because everything else looked so excellent, as I think the years between 1942 and 1944 are the least discussed parts of America's involvement in WWII of all.

In the Q & A session, Burns brought up a lot of other stuff that's in "The War" which I think is either going to come off as either captivating or extremely controversial. For various reasons, the filmmakers made a point of characterizing WWII as "that necessary war." Maybe they'll explain a little bit more about why they did that in the film; it...didn't exactly come up at the presentation. One of the possible explanations Burns gave, though, was something that even I, as a critic of even necessary war, think more people should be aware of. It comes through an interview with one of the soldiers who was in the European theater and had the opportunity to encounter a German officer whose job it was going to be to be an administrative ruler in Central Connecticut after the Nazis invaded America.

I'm also really looking forward to the portions of the interviews Burns' alluded to in which soldiers open up about the racism they struggled with for years after the war, as well as the trials of re-integrating into a society that had only been getting the "Saturday Evening Post" war up until their return. Apparently, one guy talks about how his parents, who had believed his time in the infantry was some sort of violence-free "athletic event," were horrified by his stories about, you know, killing people in combat.

[NoPasaran]

9. Thanks!

I'm looking forward to seeing it.

[BlueIris]

10. My pleasure.

And I can't believe I didn't get more requests for spoilers. I mean, apparently we either don't have any Ken Burns fans on this board, or this thread has been utterly lost amid a swirl of "diaper," "blowjob" and "Cindy Sheen is a sad creature" thread titles.

[tammywammy]

6. I read an article about this documentary a few months ago

I'm eagerly awaiting it. It looks great.

[EFerrari]

8. Ken Burns keeps writing Latinos out of history. And, he's been

sort of a jerk about it. Apparently, we didn't do jazz OR WW2, fyi. And this isn't about korrectness but when someone pointed out his consistent omissions, he was rude. That kid gets no tip from me.

http://www.cinematical.com/2007/04/03/latinos-protest-latest-ken-burns-documentary/

[BlueIris]

11. Oh, wait, I forgot about one of the best (and funniest) moments from the presentation:

Apparently, the film was well-received at Cannes, even though Burns admitted that "they didn't know us from Adam." Then he felt the need to describe Cannes for the audience, calling it, "the Oscars meets Las Vegas...on crack." Yes, Ken Burns used the phrase "on crack." Then he called Cannes this place where "celebrity reaches an apocalyptic crescendo." Hee hee.

[BlueIris]

12. Kick. For all of you not watching "Sopranos" re-runs.

[Swede]

13. Sounds interesting.

Thanks for the heads up.