“Must See” Movie: Peter Jackson vs. Ken Burns

 

https://static.wirtualnemedia.pl/media/top/Peter-Jackson-They-Shall-Not-Grow-Old.jpgMany thanks to Ricochet member @ejhill for alerting us in advance, from Britain, to the December US Fathom event showings of Peter Jackson’s World War I Centennial documentary, They Shall Not Grow Old. His review put the film on my “must see” list, @she provided a helpful reminder to the community on the first day of the December showings, and @eb provided a brief review. Viewing the film in 2D (it is also available in 3D) prompted reflections on renovation and invited contrast with other war documentaries. Ken Burns’ Vietnam War PBS series especially came to mind, starkly contrasting with Peter Jackson’s big screen documentary.

I respect EJ Hill’s technical assessment but have a slightly different view. Viewing the entire film in 2D, I cannot comment on any 3D issues. Aside from that disclaimer, I wholly endorse Peter Jackson’s vision and technical decisions. If you were turned off by Mortal Engines or soured at some point in the six episode Middle Earth franchise, know that all that money and technical talent has been harnessed to faithfully bring to life the Great War that was said to have inspired Tolkein’s stories.

The official They Shall Not Grow Old webpage sets out Peter Jackson’s vision:

The acclaimed documentary is an extraordinary look at the soldiers and events of the Great War, using [100 hours of] film footage captured at the time, now presented as the world has never seen. By utilizing state-of-the-art restoration, colorization and 3D technologies, and pulling from 600 hours of BBC archival interviews, Jackson puts forth an intensely gripping, immersive and authentic experience through the eyes and voices of the British soldiers who lived it.

The movie follows soldiers from the day before war was declared to street scenes back home after the Armistice. There are no third party narrators. Rather, every voice-over is from the 600 hours of interviews. Jackson chose to begin by fully examining the entire body of film reels and audio recordings, 100 hours of film and 600 hours of audio, then married veterans’ comments to selected footage. He further gave the soldiers their own, authentic voice, by hiring forensic lip-readers to create transcripts.

The nature of the original film footage both created technical challenges and facilitated lip-reading. At the time, a film camera was a very new thing, and people reacted to being in a camera’s view by looking at the camera. That turned out to provide lots of people speaking directly into the camera. Because British soldiers tended to sign up and serve in units associated with their home town, it was possible to research the units, then hire voice actors from those locations to read the words spoken by young men from their area a century ago.

At the same time, the film in these attention-grabbing cameras was hand-cranked, generating speeds between 11 and 17 frames per second. So, it took time to visually judge each reel, with increasingly expert eyes, to set the baseline on which the software must interpolate the correct number of bridging frames to reach the 24 frames per second modern viewers expect. The film itself shrank over the century, so the sprocket holes are a bit off, generating vertical jump, which had to be corrected. Some film was very over exposed, and some seemed almost all black, but modern software was able to correct light levels as well. All of this had to happen before selecting the footage that would tell the soldiers’ story.

With film, narrative interview footage, and lip-reading transcripts in hand, Jackson leveraged his extensive collection of uniforms, equipment, and even two artillery pieces, as the basis of both authentic color pallets and foley effects. When a cannon is loaded and unloaded, or moved, you are hearing the true sound of the real artillery piece. The New Zealand military did their bit by allowing microphones to be placed by a modern 105 mm howitzer, along the shell’s planned arc, and all around the impact area. In this way, you get the closest possible approximation of the cannon’s report, the shell whistling through the air, the explosion, and all the debris lifting, spraying and falling back to earth. The fields are colorized from a palette defined by modern color photographs of the original locations.

Peter Jackson’s achievement sets a new, high bar for all future historical documentaries. The technical and directorial decisions were rewarded with phenomenal audience response. The box office was astonishing.

“They Shall Not Grow Old,” Peter Jackson’s World War I documentary, has electrified the movie industry.

The landmark film made $5.7 million over two days, becoming the top-grossing release in event-cinema history.

[..]

Each day it played, “They Shall Not Grow Old” had the second-highest per-screen average of any U.S. theatrical release. That’s an incredible feat when theaters are filled with holiday releases.

While the December showings in the United States were under the Fathom Events series, Warner Bros. and the theater chains took notice of audience response.

Suffice to say, for a historical documentary these are pretty eye-popping figures, and they more than justify a wider release for They Shall Not Grow Old. As such, Warner Bros. will launch limited theatrical releases in NYC, L.A. and Washington DC starting on January 11, with plans to then expand into 25 more markets on Feb. 1.

Peter Jackson’s success comes with a movie crafted to honor his, and his writing partner’s, ancestors who died in, or as a result of, the Great War. Ken Burns’s The Vietnam War, on the other hand, is grossly biased against America and dismisses or ignores the honorable and just service of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Burns sought to cement the left’s narrative in the American mind, yet the work was so unexceptional that he was snubbed by his peers come Emmy time.

Vietnam War Vet Critiques Ken Burns' New PBS DocumentaryLewis Sorley, on a Federalist podcast, called Ken Burns’ portrayal of the Vietnam War revisionist.

“I came to believe that Burns didn’t much care for American and that came through in the documentary,” Sorley said. “He’s saying in effect, ‘This is an unwinnable war.’”

The usual leftist ploy is to then point to convenient criticism from the left, claiming this shows the production is truly balanced. So, The Huffington Post obliges.

Despite the counter-cultural veneer, however, and admirable efforts to provide a Vietnamese perspective, Burns and Novick’s film in its first episode provides conventional analysis about the war’s outbreak and can be understood as a sophisticated exercise in empire denial.

The film is misleading at the outset in quoting an American soldier who recounts the pain of his homecoming, insinuating that veterans were maltreated in the United States – a trope often used to blame antiwar activists for creating this allegedly anti-veteran and divisive climate.

The first paragraph might have helped Burns, but the second calls attention to the American left’s real position and alerts us to look for this view in Burns’ work. Providence Magazine provided a good summary, with links, of pro-American and pro-veteran critiques of Burns.

Burns and Novick make a very conscious effort to say they would not malign Vietnam veterans, as so much of the previous anti-war history had done. To some extent they avoid overt disrespect, but I think they still do a disservice to veterans. The Vietnam War interviews a huge number of anti-war veterans. Also, the Gold Star Mother interviewed happens to be one of the few who opposed the war. Likewise, the prisoner of war whom the documentary focused upon happens to be married to one of the only anti-war POW wives. Clearly, this is a selective effort trying to convince viewers that there was much more anti-war sentiment amongst the military and their families than actually existed. Burns presents very little about American soldiers’ camaraderie and pride. I think this is very much a deliberate attempt to undermine veterans’ experiences. The only times the documentary shows this sort of pride or enthusiasm is when it shows the North Vietnamese, who probably had less to be enthusiastic about since they lost so many times. We don’t hear anything about the 259 Americans who received the Medal of Honor, or the tens of thousands who earned other awards, or the countless others who displayed extraordinary valor but did not receive an award for it. Instead, the series leads viewers to believe that Vietnam veterans were victims of the war, that there was not much redeeming about them, and hence, again, that maybe going to Vietnam wasn’t the right thing to do.

Consider that Ken Burns started with infinitely better preserved source media, as well as access to an enormous number of living witnesses. Contrast that to Peter Jackson starting with only 100 hours of film and 600 hours of audio, while not one witness to the events is still living. Burns’ leftist labor was well received by the New York Times, but only for its political value.

“The Vietnam War” is not Mr. Burns’s most innovative film. Since the war was waged in the TV era, the filmmakers rely less exclusively on the trademark “Ken Burns effect” pans over still images. Since Vietnam was the “living-room war,” played out on the nightly news, this documentary doesn’t show us the fighting with new eyes, the way “The War” did with its unearthed archival World War II footage.

[…]

But the film’s power comes from the oral histories. An American veteran describes dragging insurgents’ corpses into a village square “to see who would cry over them” so there would be more people to question. A soldier’s mother remembers tensing up every time she heard the crunch of tires on her driveway. A North Vietnamese officer recalls when she was assigned to a house abandoned by a South Vietnamese counterpart, an unfinished dress that the daughter had been sewing still lying in place.

One interviewee who stands out is the soft-spoken John Musgrave, whose arc over the course of the documentary takes him from a Marine driven by pure hatred of the enemy, to antiwar protester. His emotion is still on the surface as he recalls a dark time, after his discharge, when his dogs interrupted him as he sat with his pistol to his head. “I think,” he says — and it’s as if the immensity is hitting him at that second — “I would have k-k-killed myself.”

Note how only anti-American and communist viewpoints are privleged and praised here. So much for The Huffington Post‘s attempt to provide cover from the left. Stephen Sherman, who served with the 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam, was not one of those who Ken Burns wanted to hear or give voice to:

Thank you, Ken Burns, for bringing the issue of Vietnam back to our attention. Thank you for doing this before all of us who served there, and the 70% of us who would have gone back and done it all again, have been silenced by actuarial factor death. Thank you, Ken Burns, for imagining that this country can be healed and divisions overcome.

But just one more thing, Mr. Burns: come help us identify the untruths and tear down “this wall” of false history.

In the end, the Emmy Awards snubbed Ken Burns.

Ken Burns, branded as “America’s Storyteller,” was shut out at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards ceremony on Sunday, September 9. Burns’s latest project, the mammoth PBS series, “The Vietnam War,” was nominated for Emmys in four categories. One by one, through the evening, the prizes were awarded to other nominees.

We shall see how the Oscars treat Peter Jackson’s documentary, but it is a pretty safe bet that he will win at least a technical award. If you are in one of the top 25 movie-going markets, do see They Shall Not Grow Old on the big screen in February. If you cannot, look to view it on the largest screen you can get with the best sound system. While it is R-rated, it should be high school senior mandatory viewing. On the other hand, look closely at high school curricula and push back hard on any use of Burns’ wilfully distorted view of Vietnam.

Published in Group Writing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 10 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Vectorman Inactive
    Vectorman
    @Vectorman

    Clifford A. Brown: Note how only anti-American and communist viewpoints are privileged and praised here. So much for The Huffington Post‘s attempt to provide cover from the left. Stephen Sherman, who served with the 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam, was not one of those who Ken Burns wanted to hear or give voice to:

    Not sure why the Stephen Sherman link goes to the same New York Times link.

    Otherwise, a great post!

    • #1
  2. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Vectorman (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown: Note how only anti-American and communist viewpoints are privileged and praised here. So much for The Huffington Post‘s attempt to provide cover from the left. Stephen Sherman, who served with the 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam, was not one of those who Ken Burns wanted to hear or give voice to:

    Not sure why the Stephen Sherman link goes to the same New York Times link.

    Otherwise, a great post!

    Thanks. Fixed the link.

    • #2
  3. dnewlander Inactive
    dnewlander
    @dnewlander

    I feel pretty much the same way about Burns’ other work.

    • #3
  4. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Yes, a brillliant film.  No narrator except the words spoken by the veterans themselves, by those veterans.  

    • #4
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I am both angry and heartbroken when supposed historians distort these events for political fame. I will make a point not to see Ken Burns’ work; I’ve seen enough distortions of the Left on the issues of the Vietnam War to last a lifetime. Great post!

    • #5
  6. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    I’ve never forgiven Ken Burns for making WWII boring.

     

    • #6
  7. Wade Moore Member
    Wade Moore
    @WadeMoore

    Great movie.  Make sure you stay for the 30-minute mini documentary on the techniques used to make the film.  Very interesting.

    • #7
  8. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    What other areas of renovation in art and history interest you?


    This conversation is part of our Group Writing Series under January’s theme: Renovation. There are plenty of dates still available. Have a great home renovation story? Maybe with photos? Have a terrible home renovation story? How about furniture, or an instrument, a plane, a train or an automobile? Are you your renovation project, or someone else’s? Do you have criticism or praise for some public renovation, accomplished or desperately needed? Are you a big fan, or not so much, of home renovation shows? Unleash your inner fan or critic. We have some wonderful photo essays on Ricochet; perhaps you have a story with before and after photos, or reflections on the current state of a long project. The possibilities are endless! Why not start a conversation? Our schedule and sign-up sheet awaits.

    I’ll post the February topic and sign-up sheet mid-month. I’ll consider topical suggestions.

     
    • #8
  9. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Wade Moore (View Comment):

    Great movie. Make sure you stay for the 30-minute mini documentary on the techniques used to make the film. Very interesting.

    Absolutely.

    • #9
  10. ToryWarWriter Coolidge
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    Perhaps I shall remove Ken Burns from my documentary list on Netflix.

    • #10
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.