"The Roosevelts", a seried by Ken Burns.

Yes, it's very good.

Poor Eleanor, she didn't benefit as photography improved.

Never realized how tall Franklin was (6' 2") and I always thought TR was short. He was 5' 10", that's not tall but not short either.

People have forgotten how horrible polio was.

Wonder how things would have been different if Teddy hadn't said he wouldn't run in 1908. He would have been easily re-elected. Would he have run again in 1912?
 
In my experience, Burns seldom really makes a documentary about his nominal subject. Instead, he uses his nominal subject to make a documentary about race.
 
Spindrift said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Civil War, Jazz and Baseball all turned into documentaries on race, as did the one on the West (I forget the name of that one), although in that one you can at least say that he spread the victimhood around--the Chinese, Indians and Mexicans all got the sob-sister treatment.

I would be very surprised if there is not a heavy racial focus to the Roosevelts.
 
Very good so far. Damaged privileged people doing remarkable things.

And its enough not about race that you should be surprised.
 
Brainster said:
Civil War, Jazz and Baseball all turned into documentaries on race, as did the one on the West (I forget the name of that one), although in that one you can at least say that he spread the victimhood around--the Chinese, Indians and Mexicans all got the sob-sister treatment.

I would be very surprised if there is not a heavy racial focus to the Roosevelts.
Click to expand...

Not seeing this.
 
Brainster said:
Civil War, Jazz and Baseball all turned into documentaries on race, as did the one on the West (I forget the name of that one), although in that one you can at least say that he spread the victimhood around--the Chinese, Indians and Mexicans all got the sob-sister treatment.

I would be very surprised if there is not a heavy racial focus to the Roosevelts.
Click to expand...


No one should be surprised that documentaries about the Civil War(!), Jazz and baseball touch on race. Seems that for you, any mention of race makes them "documentaries on race." I watched "Jazz" -- and it was mostly about music. But then alarms don't go ringing in my head if they also mention that the black musicians faced racial discrimination in their professional lives.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Civil War, Jazz and Baseball all turned into documentaries on race, as did the one on the West (I forget the name of that one), although in that one you can at least say that he spread the victimhood around--the Chinese, Indians and Mexicans all got the sob-sister treatment.

I would be very surprised if there is not a heavy racial focus to the Roosevelts.
Click to expand...

Let's see, subjects where race is big factor in the subject itself and you have a problem with that? It would have been better he ignored it?

There is a heavy racial focus to the Roosevelts. It concentrates on caucasians and particularly one family of caucasians.
 
Brainster said:
Civil War, Jazz and Baseball all turned into documentaries on race, as did the one on the West (I forget the name of that one), although in that one you can at least say that he spread the victimhood around--the Chinese, Indians and Mexicans all got the sob-sister treatment.

I would be very surprised if there is not a heavy racial focus to the Roosevelts.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what did black people have to do with the Civil War. Burns should have dedicated five episodes to tariffs.
 
Brainster said:
Civil War, Jazz and Baseball all turned into documentaries on race, as did the one on the West (I forget the name of that one), although in that one you can at least say that he spread the victimhood around--the Chinese, Indians and Mexicans all got the sob-sister treatment.

I would be very surprised if there is not a heavy racial focus to the Roosevelts.
Click to expand...


Excuse me if I think that what you are REALLY suggesting is that Burns documentaries have a left wing bias.
 
In my experience, Burns seldom really makes a documentary about his nominal subject. Instead, he uses his nominal subject to make a documentary about race.
Click to expand...

I can see where you're coming from (his "Baseball" spent considerable time on the Negro League and never mentioned the Pacific Coast Leage, IIRC): he does tend to take a somewhat black and white view of American history. I'm more peeved with how much he focuses on what happened back East, while paying less attention to events in the Western parts of the US unless he absolutely has to, as in his recent "Dust Bowl".

Getting back to the original question: it's OK. It's the same Ken Burns style - pan over an old photograph, zoom in a a face or two, ponderous narration underscored by slow tinkling piano music. I'm more than a bit biased as I've recently read a couple of biographies about TR so I found the first two segments superficial, with little effort to explain his gadfly nature, or to reconcile the reformer with the warmonger.

I know less about Eleanor Roosevelt, so I'm finding the parts about her more interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom