Baseball nuts, jazz aficionados, Civil War connoisseurs — everyone loves Ken Burns and his magisterial PBS documentaries, right? Well, the Latino activists who are protesting Burns’ latest project might beg to differ. They say that The War, Burns’ upcoming 14-hour examination of World War II (due in September), lacks any representation of the Latino community’s contributions to the war effort. Burns has replied that he "did not set out to exclude Latinos, or any other group" — but his representatives are reluctant to make time-consuming additions to a film which already took six years to assemble. PBS plans to propose possible solutions to the impasse this week. What should they do?
In my mind, at least, there’s only one option: Burns has got to spend some more time researching the Latino WWII experience and add it to his film. This is really a win-win situation from his perspective. His reputation rests on the (correct) public perception that his films are thorough, definitive takes on their subjects. They’re all sprawling and overstuffed with information — that’s the appeal. So what if this one ends up at 15 or 16 hours instead of 14? It’s not as if anyone watches Ken Burns films as quick, on-the-fly diversions anyway. They’re the anti-YouTube. No one is accusing Burns of being a racist, since he’s obviously not; this is a problem of honest oversight, human error, and more research will make the final product a richer viewing experience as well as a fairer historical document.
Not everyone agrees. The AP’s reporter, for instance, asserts withoutciting a source that "[PBS] executives are loath to impose uponsomeone’s creative vision, particularly the system’s biggest star,"asking, "If PBS changes a film because of one group’s complaint, whathappens the next time?" Well, next time Burns can redouble his effortsto make sure he’s not missing any important aspects of his story in thefirst place. Since his creative vision is fundamentally based onshowing all sides of a historical event fairly, this won’t be much ofan imposition from an artistic standpoint. And if he does misssomething through no fault of his own, he can listen attentively to thepublic’s suggestions and make his work even fuller and better. Hasn’tPBS heard? Viewer engagement with the entertainment industry is thewave of the future! (Maybe PBS documentaries shouldn’t be theanti-YouTube after all.)
How about you, PopWatchers? Am I crazy to think it’s worth waiting afew more months for a more complete and well-rounded version of KenBurns’ latest project?
I don’t understand why each and every group needs to have their specific “contribution” mentioned. Didn’t basically every group, racial or otherwise, do their part in the war effort in WWII? Isn’t it assumed without need for specific comment that some soldiers were Latino, some Black, some Jewish, some irish, some italian, etc? If Burns is forced to put in a specific hour on every imaginable ethnic group it is going to be a very long documentary indeed. I think that’s pure insanity.
“Since his creative vision is fundamentally based on showing all sides of a historical event fairly, this won’t be much of an imposition from an artistic standpoint.” Yes, but since when is talking about the races involved a “side”? Why should he go out of his way to point out the contributions of specific races of people? Isn’t that the very *essence* of racism?
I agree 100% with Simon. I had a grandfather who fought in WWII and earned a Purple Heart, and he told me stories about Latino soldiers during the war and his time in Italy.
Also, Simon made the great point that extreme all-inclusiveness (which some people may think is silly and goes overboard) is actually Ken Burns’ bread and butter. This is what he does.
The first poster said that if Burns acts this way, it would be “a very long documentary indeed.” Umm…hello, it’s already 14 hours!
I agree 100% with Simon. I had a grandfather who fought in WWII and earned a Purple Heart, and he told me stories about Latino soldiers during the war and his time in Italy.
Also, Simon made the great point that extreme all-inclusiveness (which some people may think is silly and goes overboard) is actually Ken Burns’ bread and butter. This is what he does.
The first poster said that if Burns acts this way, it would be “a very long documentary indeed.” Umm…hello, it’s already 14 hours! Better to the soldiers who would’ve been left out, and better for Burns’ continued reputation and cred to do it right.
This article does a better job of explaining how he found his subjects and how he created the framework for the film.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18013714/
Agreed with Ceballos and with Simon. If one talks about the Tuskugee airmen, the Japanese internment camps and the treatment of Jews during this era, it is only fair that Latinos get coverage. Especially so because the success and bravery of the Latino companies were part of the reason the military was de-segregated in the first place.
Speaking only for Puerto Ricans, we’ve fought alongside other American soldiers in EVERY conflict since WWI (some argue Puerto Ricans got citizenship specifically so we could get drafted in Wilson’s war), but rarely get recognized.
So heck yeah we deserve a segment in this documentary! Enough of my kin have died so others could live enough to justify a few moments out of a friggin’ 14 hour documentary.
Normally, I’m all for inclusiveness but honestly, this is getting slightly ridiculous. Doesn’t Burns expore the war through the stories of four individual soliders? Is he supposed to pick them based on ethnicity/race? What about other minorities, like Native Americans who fought in the war? Or gays and lesbians? Obviously, I could just go on and on. I understand the impetus behind people’ critique, but this just seems like tokenism run amok. Critique the movie if you don’t like it, but don’t force Burns to start including different ethnic groups — it’s his freakin’ film!
Thanks Elizabeth – it’s a good article.
The experiences of African American veterans of WWII, who fought fascism abroad and racism everywhere else, is now a de rigeur part of WWII lore.
And the experiences of the women at home who were pulled out of domesticity for the war effort, and then put right back in when the menfolk returned, are also a part of modern-day storytelling about WWII.
But the Latino and Hispanic story just hasn’t been told. We’re in a new century now, where it’s pretty darned okay to hate swarthy Arabs, and to imagine that every Hispanic-appearing person in America is an immigrant from Mexico who came to steal jobs.
Didn’t our fearless leaders just set aside a pointlessly stupid amount of money to build a pointlessly stupid fence that even border guards think is moronic?
It’s important to include these stories now, when anti-immigrant and anti-Latino fervor is so very high.
Back to the drawing board, Kenneth. We can wait for you to do it right.
Elizabeth, thanks for the link. It is impossible to express an insightful and meaningful opinion on this issue without having seen the film. As Simon stated, Burns is obviously not a racist so he clearly has another reason for not including Latino subjects in his film, as I am sure he has reasons for not including all the other minorities, religious groups, etc, that probably ultimately didn’t make it in. What those reasons are, and whether they are legitimate, is something that can be only be reasonably debated after we have actually seen the documentary.
While I sympathize with the protestors, the idea of Burns changing his documentary because of their protests does not sit well with me. Are we to submit all art to committee now? If it doesn’t satisfy every special interest group, it should be changed as proscribed by said group?
Ken Burns did not set out to make this an inclusive documentary. He simply chose four towns (not soldiers) to get a good cross section of the experience. Let the work stand on its own based on that idea, though flawed. Have PBS commission a different documentary – perhaps by Burns or perhaps by a filmmaker that would take less time – to do an hour or two on Latinos and the war.
This time, the cause might seem noble, but the squeaky wheel should not have veto over an individual’s artistic choices. It’s too slippery a slope.
I think the word “angry” is taking it a bit too far– it was an honest mistake, so why can’t the activists say, “We’re sorry you didn’t include Latino viewpoints. In the future, we hope you’ll be more aware of the issue” and not get angry over the work of a mostly inclusive filmmaker? Or better, if they had brought up the issue during the 6 long years he was working on it instead of after the fact.
One of the major problems in changing the film at this point is that it was designed to focus on four specific U.S. communities, soldiers from those communities and the effect the war had on those towns. If there were any Latino perspectives to be found in those places, Burns & Co. probably would have found them. Just slapping together a couple more hours of Latino perspective would ruin the film (which I have seen portions of) due to the way it’s structured.
petesbananas.blogspot.com
Thanks Karla!
One of the issue that lies here is that Burns’ doc’s are considered “definitive” and used as educational supplements in classrooms nationwide. & with the latin@/chican@ student populations increasing, there needs to be something done to be reflective of the current populations. We need to be educated on our populations, including the one that will shortly no longer be a sub-population. So, with that said: Stop silencing our voices and stop making us more invisible!
how the heck do Latino activists know this if it’s not on until September?
can i get advance screenings by starting an activist group?
How lucky am I that the two topics I would love to start learning about in depth (baseball and jazz) are already Ken Burns documentaries. A netflixing we will go.