Rating: 
Summary: Mythmaking
Review: If only the AFI top 100 American Films list could include documentaries. I would certainly include this series, not only as one of the greatest documentaries ever made, but also one of the best films, full stop.Ken Burns has come under a lot of flak for his historical incompetence. Yes, as a historian, I cannot really defend his work as a serious exercise in history. But that is not the point. Burns is mythmaking. Mythmaking is frowned on by "serious" historians, or many of those who consider themselves arbiters of history - those with history degrees like myself, or those who respect the work of historians, and those moreover who see danger in fictionalising the past. Far be it from me to denigrate those who see value in serious historical work as performed by scholars. Fictionalising history CAN be dangerous. Look, for instance, at the Nazi Party, which distorted the story of the fall of the Roman Empire to serve their evil racial policies. To this day the study of Ancient German peoples is atrophied in universities within Germany itself, for it has not recovered from that era. However, the opposite case is also true. We all need to see the past as a story. Those like Ken Burns who present the past as a story - and what a story! - are creating a kind of modern Iliad. Certainly, Robert E Lee never cried out "Strike the tent!" on his deathbed (sorry, but that was fictional!); but it fits in so well with the image of the character as presented in the story, that it becomes art. It does not matter that Sherman's march to the sea was not as destructive as modern Southerners insist; or that Stonewall Jackson may not actually have chewed lemons in battle; or that Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain probably did not order that fateful bayonet charge on Little Round Top. (Shock! Horror!) All these images are so much a part of modern understandings of the war, that there was a need for a story to bring together all these threads of memory. To make the mythological memory of the AMerican Civil War an actuality. If historians want people to be INTERESTED in history, rather than simply being informed - which is why, presumably, they becam interested in history themselves - then they must begrudge ordinary people a little mythmaking. After all, these myths conform to the "canonical" telling of the war. Why not allow these canonical myths to be enshrined? Oh, by the way, I am Australian, and have no connections to America at all. Greatest war of all times?!?
Americans, I am afraid, have just a LITTLE cultural myopia...
Rating:
Summary: 4.5 Stars - About As Good As A PBS Documentary Will Get
Review: My college major was history, and one day in a history methods course the professor made the comment that virtually everything you read has a "slant" to it. This is particularly true when it comes to historical writing. This is why some historians will write positively about a given historical figure, group of people, or event while other historians will lambaste the same subjects. It is very difficult if not impossible for a historian to not inject their own biases into a historical work. The professor went on to say that a knowledgeable and discerning historian should be able to detect the "slant" in the writing. That being said, any documentary shown on PBS that attempts to analyze and interpret historical occurrences is already going to have a "slant" from the get go. Political correctness and left leaning ideology are PBS staples (which is good or bad depending on your personal "slant") This ideology has inevitably crept into the Ken Burns Civil War series.
As many other reviewers here on Amazon have already noted, Ken Burns (along with multitudes of other historians) has placed too much emphasis on slavery as being the primary cause of the Civil War. If you ask the average American on the street why the Civil War was fought, more often than not you'll get the common answer that the war happened because of slavery. Most adults today were taught when they were kids that the Civil War was a fight over slavery. This documentary certainly will lead the viewer to this conclusion with its overemphasis of slavery as the root cause of the war. There is no doubt that the slavery issue was a factor; John Brown's 1859 raid at Harper's Ferry certainly involved the slavery issue, and it definitely made southerners uncomfortable. However, slavery was not "the factor" that resulted in the Civil War
Is a documentary shown on PBS every going to go 180 degrees against PBS "slant"? Are you kidding me? The reasons and rationale that caused the southern states to secede from the union are complex, but they can perhaps be boiled down to the fact that southerners believed that the policies of the federal government favored the northern states and were ruinous to southern interests. Is the PBS Civil War documentary going to downplay the slavery issue? No. To do so would risk offending some. Is it going to downplay or disregard the immense impact that Christian based religious belief had in 19th century America? Yes (in one of the very few brief comments made about religion in this documentary, Shelby Foote refers to Stonewall Jackson as "a religious fanatic"; to most hearers this is not a positive term). Is the PBS documentary going to teach that Abraham Lincoln, although he favored freedom for slaves, didn't himself believe that negros were equal to whites? No. However, as Lincoln historians know, this is true. Sad to say, but with the exception of abolitionists who made up a small percentage of the population, this was the prevailing attitude among whites in 19th century America, and Lincoln was no exception.
Even though this documentary has its detractors and "slant", it is nevertheless entertaining, educational, and worth watching. Just be aware that there is some interpretive "slant". If Ken Burns has sparked your interest in the Civil War, perhaps you will go out and get some good books and primary sources to do your own research and learning. No eleven hour documentary will be able to capture all that was the Civil War, and this inevitably leads to some things being unfortunately but necessarily de-emphasized for the sake of time. As some other reviewers have pointed out, there are things such as the conflict in the west being under emphasized compared to the battles in the east. But let's face it, with only 11 hours to tell the whole story of the war, famous battles such as a Gettysburg are going to get more attention than a less known Chickamauga further west.
So, enjoy the documentary. To put it in bad grammar, it ain't gonna get no better on PBS.
Rating: 
Summary: Technically perfect historical fallacy
Review: I have always thought the most intriguing elements of this conflict are the photographs and the participants own words. Technically combined in such a way that really is almost art this style admirable. The content however is the leftist agenda of feel-good fantasy. Burns effort to frame this as a moral crusade to eliminate or retain slavery is so far from the historical reality it is impossible to take seriously. A previous reviewer has pointed out that Civil War forensic experts (photographic, check out the Frassanito books)have debunked Burns altogether. Want the authoritative account (at least up to May 1863)? Get Gods and Generals. The same folks who loved Burns delusionary documentary hated it. G&G is a film on solid historical foundation.
Rating:
Summary: Unbelievably good history. Deserves 6 stars!
Review: This is quite simply the best historical documentary I have ever seen, and it may very well be the best telling of the story of the American Civil War that I have ever experienced. It certainly is one of the better ones. This film, which contains no dramatization or re-enactments, nevertheless does a wonderful job of explaining both the political and military dimensions of the greatest conflict ever fought in the New World, and the greatest struggle in American history. The documentary features excerpts from the diaries of various Civil War figures, high as well as humble, and commentary from various historians, including author-historian Shelby Foote, who does a good job of introducing in particular the Southern perspective (past and present). The overall presentation is outstanding, and well worth watching and owning. No Civil War afficianado will want to pass up the DVD collection of this piece. It is quite simply a must-have. I have watched mine many times. Simply first rate. This film shows that history need not and should not be dull.
Rating: 
Summary: Moving, but foreshadows Burns' later shortcomings
Review: Everyone else has mentioned the power of this film, and it does give you an emotional left hook. The fact that power is conveyed mostly through still photographs means you're in the presence of a rare talent. And it does focus on slavery as the cause, for the very good reason that it caused the war: the economic and state sovereignty issues that undergirded the Confederate States of America all sprang from the politics of human servitude. No slaves, no war. Burns, though, hews very, very closely to the traditional telling of the Civil War as a conflict that occurred mainly in Virginia, with some other, minor battles in Tennessee and Mississippi. The western campaigns matter only when Sherman comes on the stage, and for Burns they matter because Sherman is there. Historians abandoned this approach three decades before "The Civil War" debuted, and today it looks even more archaic. Is this so bad? I think it is. It's a peculiarly myopic view, which "Lost Cause" historians happily parroted in the 20s and 30s: the gallant and brilliant Southerners, fighting north of Richmond, held off the stubborn and brutal Yankees until the most brutal Yankee (Grant) put down the flower of chivalry with unapologetic, disgraceful butchery. It gives Robert E. Lee a genius out of proportion to his abilities and downplays the military revolution in the Union Army, arguably the first fighting force of the modern era. The Union's superb organizational techniques came to the fore in the Western theater, where generals like Grant, Sherman and George Thomas, out of the Virginia spotlight, were free to operate, and had much more success. With the exception of the Vicksburg campaign, Burns fails to convey this: he ignores the Army of Tennesee's invasion of Kentucky, he skips over the Tennesee campaigns (leaving Thomas, the war's best defensive general, a footnote in the process) and never adequately conveys the strategic manuevering of Sherman and Johnston north of Atlanta in the spring of 1864. So, will anyone besides a Civil War geek like me complain? Probably not. If Burns' documentary was all tactics, it wouldn't be as powerful. But his approach here was repeated in "Baseball" and "Jazz": take a handful of colorful personalities to tell the story and trust them to tell it fully and completely. As critics have noted, this translates into one field or one idea getting the face time, at the expense of others. In "Baseball," the 50s are almost exclusively devoted to the Yankees, Dodgers and Giants, as if baseball did not exist outside the Big Apple; in "Jazz," Wynton Marsalis, a neo-traditionalist, gets to tell his version of Jazz, one reason the form's last 40 years get so little treatment. So it is with "The Civil War:" it's all about Virginia and the east. Why? Because Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain is more telegenic than William Rosecrans, and his story had a happier ending. For a story-teller, it makes sense. For a historian, using one man or one woman to stand in place of an entire era limits our understanding of the time. Burns, unfortunately, lets his narrative get in the way of the history. And he would do it again and again.
Rating:
Summary: Compelling Presentation
Review: I viewed the DVD's prior to visiting a number of battlefields. Not only did it get me in the mood, I was struck powerfully all over again at how well this history is presented. I have seen this series 3 times now, and I look forward to viewing it again.
Rating: 
Summary: Civil War (DVD) by Ken Burns
Review: As a Canadian who has visited Gettysburg, and possesses a Union Army sabre dated 1861, I was eager to learn more about the Civil War. Upon getting this set and watching it several times, I can say without reservation that this is truley the best documentary that I have ever seen. Every time that I watch, I learn something new. Also, the commentary by Shelby Foote contained in the movie are both informative and easy to listen to. His resonant voice, and easy drawl, make his insight a joy to listen to
Rating:
Summary: Stark Details of Some of America's Darkest Hours
Review: Ken Burns' Civil War is one of the greatest documentary films I have ever seen. Though it is sketchy in some places, Ken Burns nonetheless performed a masterpiece summarizing in eleven hours a tumultuous period in America's history that went on for at least five years. Burns depicts and highlights the adversities that soldiers and military leaders of both the Union and the Confederacy had to deal with. It was quite interesting to listen to the historians and writers, including Shelby Foote, account how rough the going was for the Union at the start of the Civil War, for the Confederacy had top-notch generals in Robert E. Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson who, despite their limited numbers of forces, were equipped with rebel soldiers who, thanks to their hunting and gathering upbringing, were skilled marksmen long before they entered the battlefield; the Union, on the other hand, had, in large part, troops whose backgrounds did not adequately equip them for effective use of weaponry. On a broad scale, recurring themes concerning both sides which include: communication (or lack thereof), coordination, cooperation, strategic revision, and retraining are prevalent throughout. Near the end of the Civil War, however, it seemed to be all about: persistence, will, and reinforcement, all of which were becoming more present in the Union's court. Other noteworthy topics are the number of lives lost in each key battle as well as the toll the casualties had taken on each state's budget. Alarming was the percentage of Mississippi's revenues that ended up being used exclusively for artificial limbs. Despite the focus on the hardships, many of which were accounted for in the vast number of studied notes and letters written to families at the time, Ken Burns' Civil War, nonetheless, does have a lighter side to the subject. Included in this DVD collection are humorous anecdotes recorded by Grant, Lee, Jackson, etc. One such laughable moment was Grant's recollection of how he was not able to familiarize himself with many of the marching tunes that accompanied his forces and how he ended up handling this predicament. All in all, I salute the quality of this work. Ken Burns' Civil War is, by and large, a thorough summary of how hard living was for people back then so that those of us living today could have it so much easier by comparison. It is a powerful reminder that we should be ashamed for taking for granted so many blessings bestowed upon us in this modern world, for these good things in life would very likely not have existed without the persistence of our forefathers to pave roads to excellence that we today can travel and build upon.
Rating:
Summary: The Best TV Show of All Time (so far)
Review:
I've watched this many times on the VHS collection I used to own, and did a one handed backward somersault (figuratively) when I found out it was _finally_ available on DVD. The only thing better than knowing that was receiving this set for Christmas. I was a very good boy last year, and I love Santa.
The thing that I've noticed is that these still pictures sometimes wobble ever so slightly. I never noticed that with the VHS version, because the picture on VHS isn't as great as that of the DVD. Apparently the camera wiggled just an eyelash' worth from time to time, probably due to movements of the photographer or others in the room at the time.
I offer that as an observation, not as a criticism. I have no regrets having this DVD edition, and highly recommend it to pretty much everyone.
I would have appreciated additional material (perhaps a short documentary) about the backlash against the original broadcast, and the responses to that backlash. If anything, the series bent over backwards to examine the role of slavery as "the inciting cause", the role played by women, etc.
While I would prefer to have seen a bit more axe-grinding, such as concerning the incompetence of Ambrose Burnside, demonstrated at Fredricksburg, Antietam, Peterborough, and elsewhere, or Robert E Lee's complete lack of major victories (other than Grant's blunder at Cold Harbor) after the death of "Stonewall" Jackson, I can't complain about this series. The script is great, the narrator was the perfect choice, and the various talking heads edify and educate. The use of hundreds of Civil War era still photos is something that doesn't call attention to itself. The show is remarkable.
_The Civil War_ should be enough to induce interest among those (particularly kids) who don't know much about it, or haven't even heard about it, and as far as I'm concerned, this should be shown in every elementary school classroom, bit by bit, in the post-lunch break cool down. There are any number of books about SNAFUs of the Civil War for those interested in more in depth history.
On the one hand there is the "what if" ideas seen in some books, particularly regarding lost victories and the like. Those are often derided by the less plausible "foregone conclusion" school who frankly have their heads stuck up their rears.
Burns and company in taking the middle way produced the best TV series ever broadcast. Bravo. And bravo for this excellent (and compact) DVD edition. Buy it!
Rating:
Summary: Great stuff
Review: This is one of the best movies on the Civil War that I have seen. Very insightful and worth every penny!
|
