Twelve hours on my DVR is a big chunk of real estate, so yesterday I decided to begin watching the series that premiered two weeks ago. I'd recently returned from a trip to the Grand Canyon, and I was eager to hear the back-story of this – and other – national parks.
I'm a Ken Burns fan. "Frank Lloyd Wright" prompted me to read a biography and half a dozen books on his work. "Mark Twain" introduced me to Twain's dark side, but still gave the most celebrated writer in American history his due. I was brought to tears by the random, cruel hand of war and the dignity and eloquence of the soldiers and civilians Burns interviewed in "The War."
Get the new PD toolbar! It was during the latter documentary that I first noticed a trend, one that is perhaps not new, but was never before so obvious. In "The War," Burns went into greater detail than necessary on digressions of only passing interest. Those sections paled in comparison to the abundant drama inherent in World War II. No doubt those were the parts added at the last minute as a bone-throw to special interest groups.
The significant contributions and sacrifices of minorities in World War II indeed deserve recognition, but a work of art takes time. If the footage you have is substandard, you go get more – in a perfect world. Filmmaking for television funded by grants and the public dime is, I suspect, far from a perfect world.
So in this new documentary by Ken Burns, I expected the usual throat-clearing of various special interest groups to run as a faint background noise. Even so, I had high hopes. It's the Grand Canyon! It's El Capitan! How do you mess that up?
Ken Burns found a way.
That's not to say my last four hours of television viewing was a total loss. I learned a few things.
I didn't know the snowy egret was hunted almost to extinction to adorn women's hats. And passenger pigeons, whose migrations could fill the sky for several hours, were killed with such ferocity they died out in 1914.
I had, like most people, heard of Sierra Club founder John Muir, but I didn't grasp how instrumental he and President Teddy Roosevelt were in preserving wilderness for future generations.
I was interested, but not surprised, to learn that politics a century ago worked exactly like politics today. The public interest fights with local business interests for dominance – and often loses. "Nothing dollarable is safe," as Muir succinctly put it. The battle never ends.
I learned that to bring water to San Francisco, a glacial valley in Yosemite was flooded and destroyed. Before last night I'd never heard of the Hetch Hetchy Valley, but now I'm not likely to ever forget it.
What I didn't need to know – or rather, what I already knew because I'm over 8 years old: Writers, scholars and park rangers believe unique, historic places in nature and the species therein should be protected instead of vandalized and exploited for commercial gain.
Among the statements repeated ad nauseam: These places are beautiful. They're sacred. We get a sense of peace. What it means to be human. We get in touch with ourselves. Rich men in Europe and their private playgrounds. Distinctly American. Democratic. Belongs to the people. Majesty of creation. God's handiwork. One with nature. Lubrication of the human spirit (I laughed out loud on that one).
What a great drinking game this would have been. Well, I've got four more episodes to go!
Mr. Burns, do you suppose your PBS audience has at least an average IQ? Have you ever heard the word "understatement"? Don't you think Muir's own writing was florid and religious enough without piling on the musings of the Woodstock generation?
The photography in this documentary was, of course, spectacular. But cutting away from giant trees, sunsets reflected on lakes and rivers, frolicking bear cubs, wildflowers of every color framing snow-capped peaks, waterfalls and canyons half a mile high, calving glaciers, glowing lava emptying into a dark sea to talking heads spewing one half-baked, new-age cliche after another was worse than a bad idea. It was painful.
Gentle reader, if your 12 hours of "The National Parks: America's Best Idea" is still parked on your DVR, I recommend you watch and get it over with. Just keep your trigger finger on the fast-forward button and keep a jigger of whiskey handy for every time you hear "spirit" or "human" or "sacred." On second thought, make that light beer.
Donna Trussell is a poet, fiction writer, and former film critic. Her 2008 poetry collection, What’s Right about What’s Wrong, was published by Helicon Nine... more
If you get past the 4 hour mark, you're more patient than I. Even my wife, whom I'm convinced could put in a couple hours staring down a test pattern, couldn't get past the 6 hour point.
Having not viewed the rest of it, I can't speak for the whole thing but from what I saw it seemed like Burns was given X number of hours to fill (12 apparently in total) with material that probably could have been addressed in full in about a 3rd the amount of time.
And I do love your reference to the musings of the Woodstock generation - some of whom hadn't seen fit to alter their hairstyle since back then. You could almost smell the patchouli oil.
Another thing that came to mind was that a lot of what was presented in the portions I saw has been addressed in bits and pieces on other PBS shows on the various National Parks, and in a more interesting fashion in some cases.
I hate to say it because I too like a lot of what Burns has done, but this one really seemed to drag. Perhaps it's because, while there obvious differences between the parks themselves, the stories behind them are essentially the same.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (8)
Dirk
11:13PM Oct 11th 2009
Yeah, but the stories are NOT the same. And the parks aren't either; that is, unless you don't care about them ... then I could appreciate that it's "just those parks" and NOT "America's Best Idea". Happily you and your wife (could she REALLY watch a test pattern for hours?) are in the tiny minority along with Donna. Too bad, for these parks have much to offer, maybe even your salvation.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-6)
bob
8:00AM Oct 12th 2009
Dirk I was commenting on the quality of Burns' series, not the parks in general. It truly doesn't match the quality of some of his past works.
As I also mentioned, I've seen other shows on PBS on the same subject matter where they stuck to one or, at most, two of the parks. Those shows, generally, provided much the same information regarding not only the parks as they stand now, but their history. I, personally, found them more informative and interesting than Burns' treatment. They didn't delve into the "sacred" nature of the parks (something you apparently subscribe to as well) any where near the degree Burns does - which is a plus as far as I'm concerned.
They also didn't waste time (then again they didn't have as much to waste as Burns did) letting a collection of aged hippies weigh in on the subject to no particular purpose - the parks speak for themselves without any lofty interpretation on the part of a bunch of Summer of Love leftovers.
If the series had been shortened by at least 1/2 it probably would have been much more watchable, kept people's attention longer and, in doing so, had more of an impact where it's needed - amongst those for whom a lot of this stuff is new territory and who, perhaps, never even stop to think much about the parks.
I happen to know a lot about FLLW, so I wasn't 100% happy with Burns' treatment of him. I personally think there was a lot of stuff left out the shouldn't have been and a lot of stuff left he spent time on that I felt wasn't important. But that wasn't the point of Burns' series. It was to get people interested in FLLW.
That formula works for Burns. This time around, it appears he went the other route, more of a "preaching to the choir" approach, whereby he covers a vast amount of material to the point where, frankly, the impact is lost after awhile. Whether the subject matter itself doesn't hold up to 12 hours worth of examination or whether he got too involved in the minutia of it himself is hard to say, but it just didn't work like his others projects have.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (7)
michaelbwestman
8:55PM Oct 11th 2009
speaking of politics....when Ken started putting this together there was a crew of thugs in power in Washington who wanted to commercialize and outsource the whole NP service.......I think that your commentary relative to the political nature of this series is trite and selfish.....it may be a tad tedious in parts but the stabs at the anti-nature culture that was in power I(and arrogantly trying to strip mine the west) are a framework for the documentary....simply pretty pictures would be nice but sometimes we, as a culture, need to be softly kicked in the butt
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-2)
wasitadreamjaan
8:59PM Oct 11th 2009
I was inspired by the series especially the one on Yosemite and John Muir. I have read books by John Muir and traveled often to Yosemite during my time in California. It truely is an art of God and a very spiritual place. Back a few years ago I met a decendent of John Muirs and for me it was such an honor. He was old and dying and I would sit there and read to him from a book of John Muirs and a smile would come to his face and a gleam in his eyes would appear. When seeing these beautiful parks one truely sees how powerful our God is in creating such awe inspiring beauty on earth! Shelly Singh
RATE THIS COMMENT: (11)
shanfrina
9:13PM Oct 11th 2009
... DONNA'S-on-CRACK!!!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-15)
monicaheadlee03
9:22PM Oct 11th 2009
I respectfully disagree with this author. I am loving watching the National Parks on PBS; can't wait to get the DVD so I can watch it uninterrupted. Ken Burns is amazing again!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (3)
vbookish7
10:22PM Oct 11th 2009
THANK GOD THESE PARKS WERE PROTECTED BEFORE THE CHENEY/BUSH HACK JOB ADMINISTRATION.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-12)
Dirk
11:15PM Oct 11th 2009
Seems to me that "Hack Job" is putting is mildly. I'd refer to that administration as "America's worst idea"!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-13)
Dirk
11:09PM Oct 11th 2009
Donna, Donna, Donna, Whatever WERE you thinking when you wrote this piece?!! The reason they used so many superlatives is because these are many of the most superlative places on earth. Maybe YOU don't need them for your soul, but I sure do! Somehow you give me the sense that you count the words (in the show) and kinda miss the pictures and the meaning they hold to many of us. The last administration would happily have sold the kit and caboodle to the US Chamber of Commerce (and used the proceeds to cut taxes for the rich) and let 'come what may'. You give the sense that this wouldn't bother you a whole lot. I liked and respected the comparison to democracy that Ken used ... you might have focused more on that than your choice of words. I'd practice civil disobedience and a lot more to keep any of our wild parks.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-1)
lenherb419
11:09PM Oct 11th 2009
Ouch that had to hurt, just go to show one man/woman trash is another man/woman's treasure.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (2)
lenherb419
11:20PM Oct 11th 2009
I enjoyed the series and did not appreciate the criticism by the writer of the article. I also understand that what may be enjoyable to some may be tedious to others. I am glad for the attempt by Ken Burns to present behind the scenes stories about the creation of our natural parks and the efforts by so many to protect them for future generations. May the efforts by the last administration be unfold to see how close our precious treasures can be manipulated to satisfy the greed of commercial interests.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (3)
gotnoboss
11:21PM Oct 11th 2009
LOVE IT - I thought I was the only one feeling guilty for wandering away from the television by the third night out of boredom - not at all what I expected to feel, going in. The 1960's travelogues we were dragged to in elementary school assemblies began to seem more attractive than the repetitive drivel I was hearing and seeing. Maybe the piece was just overdone, & overly exploited beforehand - perhaps three installments would have been plenty, maybe four if it were more condensed. I hate to criticize, since it's a wonderful work, but it begans to seem self-agrandising after awhile.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (9)
mc1954car
11:39PM Oct 11th 2009
I too found it a little redundant,but the old photos and photograghy was outstandind.It was a history lesson and a documentary at the same time.I'd give it a 7 because of its content.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (10)
evolutionlake
7:45PM Nov 9th 2009
"Don't you think Muir's own writing was florid and religious enough without piling on the musings of the Woodstock generation?"
I take exception to this comment on John Muir's writings. If you've read his books and journals you'll realize that Muir was an exceptional and unique writer whose writings so inspired people that he is known as the father of our national park and wilderness system.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (2)
MamaLiz
12:40AM Oct 12th 2009
I love the parks and was so exited about the series, but I wasn't even impressed by most of the photography (Clouds? Really? Yeah,Clouds).
RATE THIS COMMENT: (4)
ottpro
1:03AM Oct 12th 2009
She makes an excellent point. The words of John Muir and others, who fought for these natural places should have been enough. The constant love poetry comes across as heavy handed. We all know those places are beautiful.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (2)
pbcivitan
2:26AM Oct 12th 2009
It appeared to be written for 10 year olds. I like the back ground/history of the parks but good grief, it was overkill; not too much detail but too many repeats of the same basic statements. PBS has had a very Liberal slant for many years and I did not see it change just because Bush/Cheney were in office.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (13)
ricky
2:40AM Oct 12th 2009
Donna needs to get out there. I,ve heard the complaints and reviews that think this would have been much improved with MTV style production. Im not the biggest Burn's fan, his JAZZ series was incomplete and flawed but still worthwhile. The National Parks does have a laconic pace to it--how appropriate for documenting these beautiful places and the grand idea of it all. I couldn't stop watching it. Burns drifts off into the minutiae now and then but this was a well researched and deeply heart felt production [hallmarks of his style] and Dalton is a revelation as the writer and the man who conceived this thing. Dubya undid many of Bill Clinton's final decrees creating new national monuments and preserves.
We need to be reminded-in great vivid detail-just how special these places are. Nice to see Teddy Roosevelt getting some props again. His contributions are often overlooked and undervalued. And John D. Rockefeller? God Bless him. How appropriate that the son of one of the robber barons could use his family fortunes for such great good!
Congress ought to set aside a few Billion dollars to serve the NPS needs. Heck we spend that much in a month in Iraq or Afghanistan for pete's sake. The NPS is America's legacy to all Americans, and has served as a shining example to so many nations around the world. Donna you need to take a hike!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (3)
kathy
4:56AM Oct 12th 2009
Donna, I usually love Ken Burns documetaries, but this one, like you, I got bored. His "Revolution" was great, "Civil War" was great, he has had many successes, but this one, didn't get it for me. Like you said we learned some new things from it, but if I have to watch l2 hours of that again I'd scream.