Brooklyn Bridge

Rating:
Summary: Mediocre early effort from a great documentarian.
Review: Although parts of "Brooklyn Bridge" hint at the excellent work Ken Burns would demonstrate in later works, this particular film falters in its last twenty minutes.

The Brooklyn Bridge is many stories, but it's mainly the tale of how perseverance can make an almost impossible vision take form. The Bridge took many years and several million dollars to build. It faced political and social opposition. It weathered scandals and corruption. And when it was over, it stood as a monument to mechanical brilliance and soulful aspirations. Burns only spends forty minutes on the story of theBridge's construction. He spends the last twenty minutes focusing on what the Bridge means to various scholars, poets and citizens, and this is where the film lags. Admittedly, the Bridge is important as a cultural icon, not just for New York, but for America. However, if Burns was going to devote this much time to testimonials, then the film should have been at least ninety minutes, or better yet, two hours.

When the film concentrates on the Bridge's construction it shines. Burn has carefully selected photos, drawings, contemporary newspaper accounts and personal journals of key participants in the Bridge's construction to vibrantly tell this story. He just should have spent more time on his subject. The pace of this documentary is so hurried and awkward, you can tell where Burns is skipping key parts of the history to get to the testimonials. Now that Burns is an accomplished film maker, I wish he would go back to this subject and try it again. There's still more to tell.

Rating:
Summary: Mediocre early effort from a great documentarian.
Review: Although parts of "Brooklyn Bridge" hint at the excellent work Ken Burns would demonstrate in later works, this particular film falters in its last twenty minutes.

The Brooklyn Bridge is many stories, but it's mainly the tale of how perseverance can make an almost impossible vision take form. The Bridge took many years and several million dollars to build. It faced political and social opposition. It weathered scandals and corruption. And when it was over, it stood as a monument to mechanical brilliance and soulful aspirations. Burns only spends forty minutes on the story of theBridge's construction. He spends the last twenty minutes focusing on what the Bridge means to various scholars, poets and citizens, and this is where the film lags. Admittedly, the Bridge is important as a cultural icon, not just for New York, but for America. However, if Burns was going to devote this much time to testimonials, then the film should have been at least ninety minutes, or better yet, two hours.

When the film concentrates on the Bridge's construction it shines. Burn has carefully selected photos, drawings, contemporary newspaper accounts and personal journals of key participants in the Bridge's construction to vibrantly tell this story. He just should have spent more time on his subject. The pace of this documentary is so hurried and awkward, you can tell where Burns is skipping key parts of the history to get to the testimonials. Now that Burns is an accomplished film maker, I wish he would go back to this subject and try it again. There's still more to tell.

Rating:
Summary: Mediocre early effort from a great documentarian.
Review: Although parts of "Brooklyn Bridge" hint at the excellent work Ken Burns would demonstrate in later works, this particular film falters in its last twenty minutes.

The Brooklyn Bridge is many stories, but it's mainly the tale of how perseverance can make an almost impossible vision take form. The Bridge took many years and several million dollars to build. It faced political and social opposition. It weathered scandals and corruption. And when it was over, it stood as a monument to mechanical brilliance and soulful aspirations. Burns only spends forty minutes on the story of theBridge's construction. He spends the last twenty minutes focusing on what the Bridge means to various scholars, poets and citizens, and this is where the film lags. Admittedly, the Bridge is important as a cultural icon, not just for New York, but for America. However, if Burns was going to devote this much time to testimonials, then the film should have been at least ninety minutes, or better yet, two hours.

When the film concentrates on the Bridge's construction it shines. Burn has carefully selected photos, drawings, contemporary newspaper accounts and personal journals of key participants in the Bridge's construction to vibrantly tell this story. He just should have spent more time on his subject. The pace of this documentary is so hurried and awkward, you can tell where Burns is skipping key parts of the history to get to the testimonials. Now that Burns is an accomplished film maker, I wish he would go back to this subject and try it again. There's still more to tell.

Rating:
Summary: Skip the movie. Go to Brooklyn for the real thing.
Review: For anyone who read David McCullough's excellent book, The Great Bridge, this film will be a disappointment. Obviously, there is only so much one can fit into an hour segment, but Burns could have done with more history and less noodling commentary from people on "what the bridge means to me." Unlike his excellent "The Civil War," "The Brooklyn Bridge" does not let the pictures and events speak for themselves.

Rating:
Summary: inspiring documentary
Review: this review is based on my recollection of the original PBS broadcast, which I remember as being in 1983; the 100th anniversary of the opening of the bridge. if this is slightly inaccurate, so be the rest of the review.

as a mid-westerner with no experience in new york, I found the Burn's interpretation of events compelling. i was studying for my engineering degree at the time and had worked in civil projects up to that point. i was stunned to learn that the plans were mostly pictures and contained little written language. i saw for the first time how the suspension structure was actually achieved. and i understood for the first time what a marvel the erection of the bridge represented in its time. i continue to marvel, today, at the functionality of the structure. I have not seen the documentary except for the one time. i do remember the section of interviews with the bridge's contemporary cohabitants. i thought that was as important and revealing as the function of the bridge today. the film has left such an impression on me that I intend to buy a copy and share it with anyone showing the fainest interest.

Rating:
Summary: This is Great Film making...Never mind the early reviews...
Review: When Ken Burns was starting to make movies for PBS, he started with a simple subject, the Brooklin Bridge. Based on the book by David McCullough, this movie was a great first entry in the Burns tradition of making good movies that can only be shown on PBS. Buy this DVD with pride and stay away from the cable and commercial networks. The only place left on the dial for good Television is PBS.

Rating:
Summary: This is Great Film making...Never mind the early reviews...
Review: When Ken Burns was starting to make movies for PBS, he started with a simple subject, the Brooklin Bridge. Based on the book by David McCullough, this movie was a great first entry in the Burns tradition of making good movies that can only be shown on PBS. Buy this DVD with pride and stay away from the cable and commercial networks. The only place left on the dial for good Television is PBS.

Rating:
Summary: Good. Dated, but good.
Review: While Ken Burns was getting his feet wet in the documentary film industry, he created this hour-long tidbit on the BROOKLYN BRIDGE. Relying on David McCullough's wonderful book, "THE GREAT BRIDGE" (see my review), Burns deftly takes the viewer down the long arduous road the builders and engineers had to take--over fourteen years--to get the bridge off the drawing board and into the East River.

The names of the protagonists and antagonist who either supported or stole from the coffers of the Brooklyn Bridge are familiar: John Roebling, Washington and Emily Roebling, Henry Cruse Murphy, William Kingsley, Boss Tweed, etc. And it's the story of these men and women--and their respective intrigues--that keep the film moving, as do the photographs of the various stages in the bridge's rise. Burns does a great job in keeping a liveliness to this aspect of the story. Then, in typical late 70s/early 80s fashion, the director turns his camera to the people of his time to get their impressions of the bridge. A common, though somewhat effective, technique to move from the historical elements of the subject, and show its relevance to "today's" world. It is an annoying and dated technique but it didn't bother me as much as it did some other reviewers. This is still a solid documentary--as solid as the bridge itself.

Rocco Dormarunno
Author of The Five Points