Anyone watched the Ken Burns Hemingway doc?

[channelkat]

I am just starting the first episode. Curious what you folks thought of it. I feel like Burns has tended to be fair enough in the past. Tell me it is not going to be some revisionist piece. I can imagine PBS magnifying certain elements to promote a contemporary leftist agenda...We shall see.

 

[baxterb]

well, you said not to tell you, so I won't get too deep...(but you asked)... yes there is some revision here - mostly when it comes to Garden of Eden and whether he was sexually 'fluid.' The answer is a clear 'no' for many reasons but of course PBS had to infer it anyway. These are tired and incorrect assertions of the old "his hypermasculinity was just a front' but hem, like a lot of people were very complex, to simplify him is to never get a handle on the whole person.

There is no information that any armchair aficionado would not already know. As a matter of fact much is repetitive of the old Biography show done on Hemingway. They misconstrue the strange interview he did with NBC, as many do.

Highlights of the show are Edna Obrien (who I think, truly DOES get Hemingway), Jeff Daniel's really great interpretation of Hem's quotes (I wish he'd re-read all the short stories - WAY better than KEach), and of course Patrick Hemingway, who really gives a peek into what it was like to 'be there.'

Hope that doesn't it ruin it for you ;-).

for the record I have watched it many times.

 

[BourbonTrail]

I am just starting the first episode. Curious what you folks thought of it. I feel like Burns has tended to be fair enough in the past. Tell me it is not going to be some revisionist piece. I can imagine PBS magnifying certain elements to promote a contemporary leftist agenda...We shall see.

It’s alright. It’s not particularly bent, but there’s some overstressing of innuendos about his sexuality like @baxterb pointed out.

 

[Joker12]

I have not seen any of it but would just say that Mr. Burns has been both unfair and slanted many times. His documentary on baseball while enjoyable was also wrong about some things and the one he did on the Vietnam war was badly slanted, inaccurate and an insult to those of us who served there.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Many of Ken Burns documentaries are quite good. I found the Hemingway one to be somewhat boring. The documentary on Vietnam was disappointing, playing to the Hollywood version of the war, continuing to use the inaccurate stereotypes which are a complete disservice to those who served.

 

[D.M.V]

Burns is a left wing hack in my opinion. He's just another subdle artful tool for the leftest agenda

 

[D.M.V]

And the irony of the named "coyote" narrator as they smuggle there communist narrative across the finish line into the minds of Americans. In my opinion...

 

[Red Leg]

Finding a communist behind every closest door is as every bit as tiring as seeing an insurrectionist cabal in every red neck bar.

Ken Burns did brilliant accurate work with "Civil War" and "Lewis & Clark: The Journey of the Corps of Discovery." He has a gift for finding perfect personalities to help weave his story. In "Civil War" it was Shelby Foote whose three volume history of the war is the most readable yet written - a work upon which Burns relied heavily. My father, a historian and author, always pointed out that Foote had the advantage over more traditional historians by being first a novelist. The series is fair to both sides. I doubt if Burns could even make the same documentary today.

For "Lewis & Clark" Burns had, of course, Steven Ambrose. His folksy humor made each episode an evening in storytelling. I think it is superb. I am also biased. Steve Ambrose was a life-long friend of my father.

I am not necessarily a fan of "The Vietnam War" but I am apparently less critical than others here. Let us be honest - It was a badly led mess. Between Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara you could not have found two men less prepared to understand or deal with the post-colonial French legacy in Southeast Asia. He is unblinking in exposing those leadership failures. On the other hand, I think he is largely fair to the men and women who fought that war. It is no accident that men like Norman Schwarzkopf and Fred Franks dedicated their careers to "fixing" the Army following that war. No it isn't "The Green Berets." but it isn't "Platoon" either.

Like others here, my primary objection to Hemingway was the innuendo with respect to his sexuality. Perhaps it is a product of the artistic class being unable to understand unconfused masculinity. And like his previous works, Burns' choices of Edna Obrien and Jeff Daniels were inspired.

 

[D.M.V]

If that's your opinion. Good for you. In my opinion it's the Camel getting the nose under the tent. So therefore I won't watch... At this point in time, they are behind every closet door so therefore that's the attitude I have. And too be clear. I view it as a neo liberal corporate style of authoritarian communist narrative. If you look at the reporting of journalist like Matt Kennard "who's a liberal by the way" one will understand if you go far enough up the food chain. People can have their appetite's and it's really no difference. The means by which this control is implemented is so sophisticated, for the average person it boggles the mind

 

[Joker12]

Finding a communist behind every closest door is as every bit as tiring as seeing an insurrectionist cabal in every red neck bar.

Ken Burns did brilliant accurate work with "Civil War" and "Lewis & Clark: The Journey of the Corps of Discovery." He has a gift for finding perfect personalities to help weave his story. In "Civil War" it was Shelby Foote whose three volume history of the war is the most readable yet written - a work upon which Burns relied heavily. My father, a historian and author, always pointed out that Foote had the advantage over more traditional historians by being first a novelist. The series is fair to both sides. I doubt if Burns could even make the same documentary today.

For "Lewis & Clark" Burns had, of course, Steven Ambrose. His folksy humor made each episode an evening in storytelling. I think it is superb. I am also biased. Steve Ambrose was a life-long friend of my father.

I am not necessarily a fan of "The Vietnam War" but I am apparently less critical than others here. Let us be honest - It was a badly led mess. Between Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara you could not have found two men less prepared to understand or deal with the post-colonial French legacy in Southeast Asia. He is unblinking in exposing those leadership failures. On the other hand, I think he is largely fair to the men and women who fought that war. It is no accident that men like Norman Schwarzkopf and Fred Franks dedicated their careers to "fixing" the Army following that war. No it isn't "The Green Berets." but it isn't "Platoon" either.

Like others here, my primary objection to Hemingway was the innuendo with respect to his sexuality. Perhaps it is a product of the artistic class being unable to understand unconfused masculinity. And like his previous works, Burns' choices of Edna Obrien and Jeff Daniels were inspired.

With regards to his The Vietnam War I will concede that he got some things right but he got so much wrong that it was no more than another trashy propaganda effort. Just a question, did you serve in Vietnam?

 

[Red Leg]

With regards to his The Vietnam War I will concede that he got some things right but he got so much wrong that it was no more than another trashy propaganda effort. Just a question, did you serve in Vietnam?

No. I went on active duty in 1974. Most of my focus was the Middle East.

 

[Red Leg]

If that's your opinion. Good for you. In my opinion it's the Camel getting the nose under the tent. So therefore I won't watch... At this point in time, they are behind every closet door so therefore that's the attitude I have. And too be clear. I view it as a neo liberal corporate style of authoritarian communist narrative. If you look at the reporting of journalist like Matt Kennard "who's a liberal by the way" one will understand if you go far enough up the food chain. People can have their appetite's and it's really no difference. The means by which this control is implemented is so sophisticated, for the average person it boggles the mind

We are drifting off track from the OP's question and intent of this conversation. But Matt Kennard? This would be the Matt Kernnard who wrote Irregular Army: How the US Military Recruited Neo-Nazis, Gang Members, and Criminals to Fight the War on Terror ?

I managed about a third of it before throwing it away. In it he claims the US Army knowingly recruited racists neo-nazis who following their military experience are now preparing a campaign of domestic terrorism as part of a race war. I wouldn't be surprised if Merrick Garland keeps an annotated copy on his desk.

 

[Red Leg]

With regards to his The Vietnam War I will concede that he got some things right but he got so much wrong that it was no more than another trashy propaganda effort. Just a question, did you serve in Vietnam?

As I said, I was not a fan, but I thought he got the strategic issues, particularly American strategic leadership failures pretty accurately. Where I think he failed, was with respect to the the portrayal of the typical American soldier or marine - not their bravery or courage, but who they were. Watching it you would come away believing our combat forces were made up of minority draftees. As I am sure you know, two thirds of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers and they made up three quarters of the casualties. Also, black servicemen made up about the same percentage that blacks do in the general population. He could have put those myths to bed, and did not.

He also gives little attention to the what could have happened scenario had Johnson fought the war with the same tenacity Nixon fought it to get us out. I am likely a little more forgiving of that, but only because we don't really know what would have happened.

Regrettably, we had forgotten the nation building lessons by the time this century brought us Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[channelkat]

I understand and respect those who chose not to watch Burns or PBS. I believe it is clear he knows where his bread is buttered and will always highlight the arguments of his ilk. I hesitated in my OP and wrote that I felt he was “fair enough”. By this I meant to suggest relative to nearly every other popular media, he was, for me, still watchable. I too silently boycott folks, brands, websites, etc., which I do not want my dollars to support. I rarely watch TV, and find shopping for anything particularly tiresome, because I want to know where my dollars are going and who I am enabling. My personal conclusion/ approach is that participation, at all, in society is a net negative. My goal is to balance things out as much as feasible. I take this balance approach to the news/ media that I do consume, because I do not want to be in the position of completely quarantining myself from emerging perspectives, views, data. It is a tough thing to avoid consuming nonsense, but keep informed of other perspectives and emerging vernacular. I know of no perfect system to achieve this balance. We all just come up with strategies that seem to work for us.

 

[Joker12]

As I said, I was not a fan, but I thought he got the strategic issues, particularly American strategic leadership failures pretty accurately. Where I think he failed, was with respect to the the portrayal of the typical American soldier or marine - not their bravery or courage, but who they were. Watching it you would come away believing our combat forces were made up of minority draftees. As I am sure you know, two thirds of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers and they made up three quarters of the casualties. Also, black servicemen made up about the same percentage that blacks do in the general population. He could have put those myths to bed, and did not.

He also gives little attention to the what could have happened scenario had Johnson fought the war with the same tenacity Nixon fought it to get us out. I am likely a little more forgiving of that, but only because we don't really know what would have happened.

Regrettably, we had forgotten the nation building lessons by the time this century brought us Iraq and Afghanist

As I said, I was not a fan, but I thought he got the strategic issues, particularly American strategic leadership failures pretty accurately. Where I think he failed, was with respect to the the portrayal of the typical American soldier or marine - not their bravery or courage, but who they were. Watching it you would come away believing our combat forces were made up of minority draftees. As I am sure you know, two thirds of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers and they made up three quarters of the casualties. Also, black servicemen made up about the same percentage that blacks do in the general population. He could have put those myths to bed, and did not.

He also gives little attention to the what could have happened scenario had Johnson fought the war with the same tenacity Nixon fought it to get us out. I am likely a little more forgiving of that, but only because we don't really know what would have happened.

Regrettably, we had forgotten the nation building lessons by the time this century brought us Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was that portrayal of those who fought that I take issue with. He did a real hack job on us and as one who did get spit at when I returned and then put up with the highly insulting stereotypes of being baby killers or wacked out on drugs he did nothing to correct that. I watched it all holding my nose through much of it but to me he lost his credibility. Those who claim to document history need to get it correct, not politically correct.

 

[Red Leg]

That is fair enough. As I say, I was likely more focused on the strategic story.

As I noted, I am a real fan of Civil War and Lewis and Clark. He was I thought scrupulously fair to both sides without ignoring the evils of slavery. I think Shelby Foote's measured literary prose and elegant Tennessee accent probably had something to do with it. A similar documentary today would be laden with terms like treason and white supremacy. In fact, the modern reviews of the work are highly critical of it because of that balance.