Rating: 
Summary: The ULTIMATE Documentary on the Civil War
Review: I remember studying the American Civil War when I was a kid in school. But stangely, I don't remember really learning anything. Sure, I learned who the Presidents were and who the Generals were, and the names of a battle or two, but I really really FELT it. I never knew the real story. Then, a few years back some of my friends told me about people who lived during the time period (Grant for instance). About the same time, I was told about this documentary by another acquaintance. He went on and on about how great it was. The more I heard about it from various sources the more I wanted to see it. Then, I finally found a copy at the library and watched the whole thing.Wow. I've seen documentaries aplenty over the years, but never ANYTHING like this. This documentary is an absolute tour-de-force of the American Civil War. From the first shots fired to the end and aftermath, everything is covered. Every issue, every confrontation, every bullet and riot seems to come alive. What makes this really unbelievable is the fact that most of the film is told through pictures with voice-overs. How you can feel like you are watching an epic movie when you are really just seeing still pictures really boggles my mind, but it is true. In this documentary you will learn about the people, locations, social forces, culture and beliefs of an entire nation. You will hear about incredible good and bad luck, death and destruction, loyalty and devotion, and sheer madness. I remember a time during my trip through this huge masterpiece when I asked myself "When are Grant and Lee going to meet? They do fight each other in the war don't they?" In reply the documentary ended a section on the mother of all cliff-hangers. A line representing Lee's Army and a Line representing Grant's Army drew closer and closer, and the narrator said that the two unstoppable forces were about to meet in battle for the first time. The tension was incredible. Then I saw the words on the screen that told me the confrontation would be on the next volume... This is not just a great documentary, it is a great work of art and a masterpiece of direction. I learned more from this documentary than I ever learned from school, and it was endlessly more entertaining. I feel that I have grown as an individual from watching this film. Ken Burns is a genius.
Rating: 
Summary: Mesmorizing every time watched...
Review: I've watched this series dozens of times since it was originally aired on PBS in the early 1990's. It simply grabs you, pulls you in, and refuses to let go until 10+ hours later. My only disappointment is that more time wasn't devoted to the the Western campaigns.
Rating: 
Summary: Nice Film, But Poor History
Review: Lovely film, lovely production. But this film is flawed when it comes to historical accuracy. Upon listening to Mr. Burns, in interviews since the film aired, it is easy to see that he is afflicted with a very bad case of political-correctness. This easily explains the historical inaccuracies which lie within the film, and the emotion laden style of the film. However, if you are able to endure these weaknesses and you are smart enough to take you history from reliable sources, then the film is worth your time. As a visual, historical tour alone, it's worth spending the lengthy time to view the film.
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Brilliant
Review: There is nothing more you can say. Whether you are an American Civil War afficionado or completely new to the subject, Ken Burns' masterpiece will get played over and over again. It is the bench mark that all documentaries should be judged against. Stills, video, interviews, music, letters--it's all done first rate and entertaining is not a strong enough word. It is breathtaking. There is enough detail for avid readers yet a newbie will not be lost. You learn more every time you watch it.
Rating:
Summary: The Gold Standard
Review: An absolute must to own for Civil War enthusiasts. An absolute must to see for all Americans. This should be the starting point for all courses of study of the war.
Rating:
Summary: A great intro to the Civil War - especially for students
Review: In an age when almost none of our children knows the dates or even the decade of the American Civil War, an extended program like this is absolutely vital to give them at least some exposure to the war and some of the issues involved. Is this series going to satisfy experts on the War? No. Is it comprehensive? No, again. But it is certainly more information than they get in their general history books at school. This series captured the public imagination for a lot of good reasons. The use of contemporary photographs is done very effectively and lets most people see images of the War they had never seen before. Hearing Shelby Foote and many other fine historians talk about the War is also interesting and informative. Yes, it would be better to read the million words of Foote's narrative of the War and dozens of other books. However, I doubt you will get most kids to do that and an effective mini-series like this could spark their interest to dig deeper. For all its limitations and simplifications of important issues, this is a terrific series and deserves to be in every home that has at least some interest in American history. Every now and again I am able to get my kids to watch an episode or two to refresh their memory. I am glad to have it on my shelf.
Rating: 
Summary: Not the gold standard of documentaries.
Review: Aside from the Fort Knox price tag for the DVD there are five reasons why I can not recommend this work:
1) Too much Northerners were saints, Southerners devils. False information is utilized to make these points. I want more information about the reasons for the war and human stories that support this information. The debate on whether the sweat shop life was worse for Blacks up North- or even if contemporary Blacks suffer more from racism up North is a point of contention. Take your side. But by focusing on the Northeners and Lincoln were saints in the issue- which carbon dated evidence clearly shows is not true- Burns misses out on a lot of important, informative and entertaining issues about the Civil War. And how that war has effected America in a number of different ways.
2) While I like the human element in the work, too much information about individuals and not enough about the Civil War. The sexual undertone in this focus on individuals is oddly out of place with the work's subject matter.
3) Most of the photographs are profiles like you'd see in website galleries for Charles Laughton, Lana Turner or say Marilyn Monroe or pictures of men in outfits with lots of buttons and scrub brush shoulder pads. This really doesn't capture the era or issues surrounding the Civil War. Odd fascination with a drummer boy from one regement. The obession with Abe's looks is flat-out creepy. So is the segments showcasing fine specimens. Again the sexual undertones are oddly out of place in this kind of work. They are better suited elsewhere. Also- yes some discussion of death is appropiate but the out of balance obsession with this side of the Civil War is weird and creepy. It replaces such things are say how what people did in the era that has greatly changed the country. This really is not a we must learn from our past type of documentary.
4) Love the horn music but the New Age piano is at times too much like the wallpaper music in the resturant where you have the neon green and pink asphalt paintings on the wall. The tomato and pesto joints. You know the resturants where they don't tell you they itemize for water and bread until after you get the bill. But love the horn music.
5) While the quotes read by the actors are very artistic-
a) Too many adjectives and not enough information that could make the show more entertaining or informative.
b) the quotes are too hard to follow. Maybe Burns should have worked harder on writing text for the production instead of taking the easy route of using quotes that he found in books at his disposal.
The kind of school films that Ken Burns was copying for The Civil War can provide better information, footage and stills. Albeit yes Burns did a great job of piecing his work together.
I just think the ingredients were weak. Also Burns work is too hard to follow. If I had access to Ken Burn's achieval material, film/video/editing equipment, plus a source of muscians and actors, technicians, historians I would have made a very different Civil War film. There deserves to be another documentary series on The Civil War. Until that time buy other selections at Amazon.com for your DVD collection. Slowly but surely it appears worthwhile DVD sets are appearing in the market. One side note: Loved Shelby Foote. Classic how in the mode of the civil Southern Gentleman he underhandly refutes key points in the film. Subtle but noticable if you pay attention.
This work would probably be big with certain cult audiences.
Rating:
Summary: Revisionist History- too much verbose fluff: 2 stars.
Review: This is another example of why I do not buy the idea that Ken Burn's documentaries are the gold standard. I quit after 1 volume from a dirty VHS print I got from the library. I have reversed my decision to buy it on DVD. Scientifically carbon dated evidence refutes a lot of what Burn's says in the documentary. For example- who am I going to trust on Lincoln's motives- Burns or what the real man said in his speeches? The Southerners are problematic but so are the Northeners. In fact it has been said by historians outside of the South that the general working/living conditions for the Black were worse up North. I'm not some Southerner like Toby Keith hell-bent on standing up for the South and knocking you unconscious to make my point. But Burns slant is so all invasive that it prevents more informative and entertaining information from being included in the work.
I like the human element in the mini-series but I wanted it to be used more for the reasons surrounding the war. The real history of the reasons why there was hatred between the North and South and so on with other history. Volume one clearly does not do this and the posters tell me I am right- the rest of the set does not do this as well. Burn's take on the war bugs me for five reasons-
1) He is trying to make the North look like angels instead of telling history in an informative and entertaining way which would include knocking both sides and not just the South. Not to play sides but Mr. Burns should ask Blacks. They'll probably tell him that even today racism is worse up North. 2) Too much heavy emphasis on stealing so many quotes for the documentary. I guess so he doesn't have to know more about the topic or write more words. Ultimately the quotes make it hard for me to follow all the information. To add to this the quotes are more adjectives (some very good prose though) than information. 3) I thought Burns could have done better than the New Age piano music like I hear at the Pesto Tomato pasta places with the neon green asphalt paintings of concrete. The places where they don't tell you that they itemize everthing including the bread and water until after you get the bill. Just like how Burns isn't always honest in the documentary either. Love the music with the horns though. 4) Too much focus on the people themselves rather than what the people did in the war. And why. I feel this is done in an way that is oddly inappropiate for the material. It has too much of a sexual overtone. To me this isn't a sexual type of work. The photographs and art are mostly profiles or people in extensive uniforms. That's great for the crowd who really like costumes with a lot of buttons and say shoulder pads on top. But it doesn't really do that much for me. Way too many facial profiles like you are in a website's gallery for a star like
Lana Turner, Judy Garland or Charles Laughton. Also too many shots of say the drummer boy. 5) Great info on death, people fighting, the horrors of war, America becoming more mature (again the sexual undertone), Abe's ugliness- the obsession on looks thing. But it lacks a lot of substantial information in a way that relates to humans told in an entertaining easier to follow way. Man I wish I could have had the access to editing equipment, actors, acheivies and so on like Burns. You'd get Donny Wallace's The Civil War. Mine would be very different. How did Burns get his job?
In Jazz- Burns other big series- everything is 20s, 30s, Louie Armstrong and the Bill Robinson era Black musician. Obviously this is some kind of fetish for Burns. But it doesn't represent Jazz in a balanced manner. Nor does the commentary say much either. It tells you the plight of the Black musician in the South. Which is true I'm sure but not about Jazz. Again nothing about the plight up North. At best you get the current token representative of the "art" form (either Branford or Wynford (I forget which- I confuse them)) telling you over and over and over again that Jazz is an expression of what it means and feels like to be Black. It's all about being Black. The Civil War documentary isn't that bad but volume 1 straddles between the Northerner preserving the Black man and even the Black man as a fine speciman of a human being (again the sexual undertone), hard to follow quotes and the realizaton of the horrors of war. I can see how certain cult audiences would love this and give it five stars. In my opinion if done differently and with a different focus The Civil War could have been an all time for me. It is badly flawed as it stands. Burns did a pretty good job of copying the kind documentaries of still and footage made for American students. For me those works often contain better footage, stills and in many cases crucial information about the event in question. I find they are easier to follow. Finally the helicopter shots of scenery and scenery in general are a waste of footage.
Loved Shelby Foote though. Classic how he refutes the Burns point of view in the underhanded mode of the gentile Southerner.
I wish people would refrain from buying stuff like this and encourage real documentaries. It's getting better but we deserve better DVD television sets. The Twilight Zone for example is an expensive rip-off with a bad menu and out of order. That is so they can try to force you to take the inferior hour long episodes and extend the number of volumes you will buy. People buy- but buy the good stuff. Give your money to Outer Limits Season 1 not the bad set of the Twilight Zone. And save your money for stuff other than Burn's Civil War set. How about Lonesome Dove and Roots? Yes Roots is a myth and shows one side of a complex issue but it is very entertaining, artistic and captures the spirit of it all. Even if it does ignore the Northern sweat shops and terrible conditions.
Rating:
Summary: Very entertaining and educational
Review: The cost of this hefty volume, at about $20 per disc, may worry some purchasers. The film certainly hasn't pleased all of the Amazon reviewers. So a quick word to the weary: if you simply despise the notion that the Civil War was fought because of slavery, or feel that any true discussion of the war begins with validation of the reasons for Southern State secession, don't buy. The film highlights prewar abolitionist activities as the war's chief cause and little else. As the film progresses it occasionally returns to the voice and experience of abolition and slavery. However, Shelby Foote, star narrator and Civil War expert, will attempt to provide some balance when he ennunciates so very well a conversation between a ragged, Rebel private and his Union captors. "Didn't own any slaves... illiterate... couldn't have much interest in the constitution... When asked what he was fighting for, he replied... Cause you're down here..." You'll hear President Lincoln's memorable words after the Battle of Antietam, "If I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save the union by freeing some and leaving others alone I would do it." In short, as this documentary unravels it offers opposing views on abolition as well as many aspects of the war in the words of Northerners and Southerners. Certainly, any knowledgable Civil War buff knows that these 5 discs, though extensive and detailed, cannot, and do not cover all aspects of the war. And, what of it. I'll wager that there is no other collection of Civil War videos or combination of films that can touch Burn's architecture, depth, or detail. And this breadth, coupled with the balance of viewpoint previously mentioned is what makes this documentary a quality EDUCATIONAL experience.
The entirity of the U.S. Civil War 1861-65 is documented roughly one year per disc, including a short prelude to the war, and an interesting biographical summary of the war's celebrities after the war has ended. It is a factual story of the war, revealed in actual photos and quotations, narrated by popular narrators and actors, interviews with historians and topic experts, and woven with period music and recent film footage. Burns' covers the major battles, politics from the home front and government seats, soldierly life, what they ate and drank, how their wounds were treated. Ahh but Burns' ability to pull the pieces together into a story is to be admired. His ability to pull the viewer closer to the people and events is apparent. His film making artistry is as good as the any Hollywood seduction. Initially, I was not pleased with the choice of voice overs, probably as a result of reading extensively about the subject beforehand, but I eventually found myself coming to enjoy them as old friends when I viewed the videos again. Special feature sections are comprised mostly of interviews, discussing the film making processing, the historical importance of this period, and general kudos for Burns' effort. A few maps are included, but don't think you can use them to take a drive from D.C. to Richmond; they are disappointingly lacking in detail. Instead Burns could have culled Claude Van Damme/Rambo fans with photos of nude women straddling Treddegar cannons. Or perhaps advertised his Jazz Documentary. Shameless, I prefer the cannons and must reduce the rating from a 5 to a 4.
Rating: 
Summary: well researched but very biased and misleading
Review: This film is produced by northerners and is very biased. Throughout the documentary, Ken Burns portrays Lincoln as the great emancipator and humanitarian. Lincoln told the nation when he was inaugurated he had no intention of freeing the slaves and he felt he had no right to do so. The emancipation freed no slaves at the time. It was a shrewd political move. He had power to free the slaves in the north and in the territories during the war but he didn't. He wouldn't where he could and he couldn't where he would. It also misrepresents the North and South's motives for fighting. 97% of Southern families owned no slaves. This film portrays the South as being full of cruel slave owners! U.S. General Grant owned slaves!! Ken Burns also forgot to mention that between 30,000 and 50,000 blacks, free and slave, voluntarily fought or aided the Confederacy. The South was fighting for the same thing their forefathers fought for in the American Revolution (independence from the rule of a tyrannical government). The Southern soldier was fighting to save state soverignty and constitutional liberty which northern radicals were trampling on. The South's agricultural exports were being taxed so heavily, many planters were being bankrupt. When the Southern states seceded, the north lost its biggest source of revenue. So what did they do? They forced the South back into the Union at gunpoint!! The north then began the sympathetic act of reconstruction. TEN YEARS OF MURDER, RAPE, PLUNDER, DESTRUCTION, AND NORTHERN DICTATORSHIP!! Do they explore these subjects in Ken Burn's Civil War? No. This documentary, if viewed, has to be viewed with caution. Research about reconstruction, black confederates, and the South's true reasons for fighting. The truth is out there...it just has to be found.
|
