"A Trademark Approach to the Past" Review

Burns gets burned...

Ken Burns is a profiteering tycoon whose purpose is to slant historic facts, hire a narrator with an attractive voice, put a camera in front of it all, and throw in a few interviews for good measure. At least, that is what Vivien Ellen Rose and Julie Corley would have you believe. In their review of Not for Ourselves Alone, the duo of authors assess Burns' job on the documentary on the history of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Burns is accused of using clever editing to get the answers he wants out of his interviewees and not relying on serious scholar. The abominable use of red leaves during the introduction is worthy of at least one or two paragraphs and the authors scrutinized his artistic use of the autumn leaves to the extent that one would think Burns committed a crime. Towards the conclusion, the authors insist that "These are not mere quibbles" to which I would have to reply: "Yes, they are." Ten and a half pages later, the authors finally make their case by stating how historians need be extra cautious about how history is presented in film as various media outlets continue to grow in popularity and number. Avenues have grown from simply radio and film to the far more accessible outlets of television (History Channel, anyone?) and of course, the Internet (Wikipedia, anyone?). It seems obvious why the article was written by two authors--the chip on their shoulder is far too large to carry by just one person. The animosity is almost overwhelming and had it not been for ten pages of Burns-blasting, it might be a article worthy of some valuable claims. Their apparent hostility and scrutiny of details where it seems clear that they are grasping for straws undermines the ultimate argument, however.