THE WAR, starting today

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Probably the most expensive documentary on WWII starts today (broadcasted on PBS). Length is approximately 16 hours. From what I understood they tried to only take first hand experiences into consideration, not ("so called" experts) and left politics fully out of it. A great concept in my eyes. It is worth a try so please tune in and give us feedback

Short Preview Video on Youtube:

PS: Mods, sorry for writing the header in capital letters. I totally forgot about this rule. Please be so kind and change that for me.

[Spokesperson 0]

Politics can't be left out of anything. Those who claim something to be objective are usually the ones who are the least objective.

[ArchangelSKT 0]

I have heard about this somewhere but as I understand he only interviewed US veterans and no UK, German or Japanese.

If that is true ( I don`t know ) I consider it to be a major drawback even if the point of view of the documentary is from US, as a matter of fact I might go so far to claim it to be narrow minded and a discrase.

[-Snafu- 78]

Politics can't be left out of anything. Those who claim something to be objective are usually the ones who are the least objective.

He means the politics of the time. He is not saying that it is unbiased.

Quote[/b] ]I have heard about this somewhere but as I understand he only interviewed US veterans and no UK, German or Japanese.

If that is true ( I don`t know ) I consider it to be a major drawback even if the point of view of the documentary is from US, as a matter of fact I might go so far to claim it to be narrow minded and a discrase.

What a shame if it is only US veterans. It would have been nice to include other 1st hand accounts from all sides.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I have heard about this somewhere but as I understand he only interviewed US veterans and no UK, German or Japanese.

If that is true ( I don`t know ) I consider it to be a major drawback even if the point of view of the documentary is from US, as a matter of fact I might go so far to claim it to be narrow minded and a discrase.

I dont think that this is actually a drawback. A clear precise mission of a film often turns out to be more powerfull than the desperate attempt to cover everything. As a german I dont find it narrow minded to cover only the american side of the fence, if it is covered well. Although for the sake of public education this might be quite risky.

As all of you I have watched quite an amount of documentaries and whenever the director tried to embrace the entire scale of the war he usually failed. It turned out to be stereotypical and soldiers on each side appeared like cheap caricatures.

Quote[/b] ]He means the politics of the time. He is not saying that it is unbiased.

Yes, the try not to cover the strategic and tactical perspective of this war, neither the story of the leading political and military protagonists of that time.

[4 IN 1 0]

i think that its the viewers who makeup the narrow mind themself

[echo1 0]

Politics can't be left out of anything. Those who claim something to be objective are usually the ones who are the least objective.

He means the politics of the time. He is not saying that it is unbiased.

How can you properly examine a war without looking at the politics behind it?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Politics can't be left out of anything. Those who claim something to be objective are usually the ones who are the least objective.

He means the politics of the time. He is not saying that it is unbiased.

How can you properly examine a war without looking at the politics behind it?

The day a soldier entered the battlefield, politics were no longer part of his experience. He was given orders by his direct superior and that was it. You risk to destroy the "being there" experience of the viewer if you zoom out of the battle microcosm to often just to give background info.

So I have problems to understand those of you insisting that a documentary can not just cover one side of the coin, that of an ordinary soldier.

[sputnik monroe 102]

It sounds quite interesting from everything I've been hearing. If I heard right it follows the experiences of people from three different towns.

 As for those making the gripe about it not having other nations troops talk in it, well some one in your country needs to make a documentary. I admit I'm actually quite keen to hear from veterans from all sides, however this documentary is a way of preserving the voices and stories from those  in my nation of my grandparents generation who served in the war. These vererans are dying off now and so it's good for our historical record to try and record their memories now.

People in England, Canada, Germany etc etc need to step up to the plate and do the same for their veterans instead of expecting US film makers to do it for them. Ken Burns isn't going to make multiple WW2 documentaries of this scope in his life time, I can guarantee, so of course he's likely going to focus on his nations veterans for his one WW2 documentary.

[-Snafu- 78]

 People in England, Canada, Germany etc etc need to step up to the plate and do the same for their veterans instead of expecting US film makers to do it for them. Ken Burns isn't going to make multiple WW2 documentaries of this scope in his life time, I can guarantee, so of course he's likely going to focus on his nations veterans for his one WW2 documentary.

We aren't expecting the US to do anything. In Britain there are War monuments in every village, town and city with the names of those that have died. And there are rememberance services at these monuments every year on November the 11th. It's like your saying that we do nothing to remember the sacrifice these people made, although I know that you do not mean that.

All I said was that it would have been nice to include soldiers from all the sides given the size of the documentary. But the angle that Burns has taken does sound interesting and hopefully it will be shown in the UK at somepoint. I liked his American Civil War documentary, hopefully this will improve upon that.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

It sounds quite interesting from everything I've been hearing. If I heard right it follows the experiences of people from three different towns.

 As for those making the gripe about it not having other nations troops talk in it, well some one in your country needs to make a documentary. I admit I'm actually quite keen to hear from veterans from all sides, however this documentary is a way of preserving the voices and stories from those  in my nation of my grandparents generation who served in the war. These vererans are dying off now and so it's good for our historical record to try and record their memories now.

 People in England, Canada, Germany etc etc need to step up to the plate and do the same for their veterans instead of expecting US film makers to do it for them. Ken Burns isn't going to make multiple WW2 documentaries of this scope in his life time, I can guarantee, so of course he's likely going to focus on his nations veterans for his one WW2 documentary.

No Monroe, I think the frustration rather stems from the fact, that we DO make awesome documentaries, but they arent shown in the US. Unless a WII film has got Oscar potential it wont be shown across the US. And if so, only a very intellctual elite will bother watching it.

It would be nice to see the US making documentaries on the german, british russian side of the coin for an american audience to show the whole "scale" of the war. But unfortunately the general viewer isnt interested so if a movie is about russia, it usually turns out to be a shitty action movie such as "Enemy at the gates", otherwise noone would watch it.

I realy wonder how many people watched "letters from Iwo Jema" vs "Flags of our fathers". And noone can denie that the first was actually better.

So yes, there is a certain portion of frustration speaking. And I realy hope that the upcoming film of Tom Cruise on Stauffenberg can change something about this general dislike for the "other side". Lets wait and see.

Sorry for potential grammatical errors, I am slightly drunk!

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Before you make an ignorant prejudgement of the film, at least understand the concept of the film.

The film is by Ken Burns, the accalimed director of "The Civil War" series documentary.

The film is not simply about the war, but instead takes the personal experiences and stories from citizens of 4 small (at that time) American towns. Pictures, movies, letters, and interviews from these families are combined with archival footage never before aired.

Quote[/b] ]Spokesperson:

Politics can't be left out of anything. Those who claim something to be objective are usually the ones who are the least objective.

Normally I would agree. But I think if you watch at least a part of the film you will see that feeling is irrelevant when your telling the stories of individuals rather than nations.

Quote[/b] ]ArchangelSKT:

If that is true ( I don`t know ) I consider it to be a major drawback even if the point of view of the documentary is from US, as a matter of fact I might go so far to claim it to be narrow minded and a discrase.

Maybe that would be something you should know before making such a statement. The film is not about WWII. It is about the experiences of American citizens durring the war, both home and abroad.

Heres the key point for those unclear. The context is a small slice of WWII, the American experience, and goes into depth. (900 mins in six parts worth) This was a HUGE project supported by many groups that support the preservation of Historical accounts, including the Vetrans History Project.

Quote[/b] ]The Veterans History Project is part of the Library of Congress and honors American war veterans and civilian workers who supported them by preserving stories of their service to our country. VHP collects and archives the one-of-a-kind stories that represent the diversity of the veterans who served our country — veterans from all conflicts, from all branches of the military, all ranks, all races and ethnicities.

The attempt was to preserve and record an American experience of the war. Yes it would be great if each nation involved in the war did the same. And they should.

If history interests you then I reccomend watching it.

http://www.pbs.org/thewar/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_(documentary)

[martinovic 0]

Looks like a feel good documentary of sorts. For those distrought by Iraq, a little reminder of WW2.

[chops 111]

Yeah I have to say that I find it ridiculous to say that politics can be left out. It's the sole reason behind the soldiers being there in the first place. I also imagine it had a heavy bearing on the average G.I. too, knowing what the Nazi's/imperial Japanese represented.

Though given the current political climate as it appears in the US, I can see why they'd want to leave it out

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Please gentlemen. Will you please watch it before judging. There is a powerful term in German that pretty much sums it up "Zeitzeugen". This word describes what it is realy about: witnesses of the war and their personal stories. As far as I understood it this documentary is about anekdotes of private experiences and emotions.

In my eyes trying to cover the entire political sphere behind it may lead to a distraction of the actual focus, the stories of individuals.

There are lots of examples here in Germany of documentaries that chose a simmilar concept and they succeeded in creating a perfect "being there" athmosphere.

[Average Joe 0]

Im watching it now, no need for politics we know all we need to know about WW2. What I think is important is what Albert says, the individuals who fought.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Yeah I have to say that I find it ridiculous to say that politics can be left out. It's the sole reason behind the soldiers being there in the first place. I also imagine it had a heavy bearing on the average G.I. too, knowing what the Nazi's/imperial Japanese represented.

Though given the current political climate as it appears in the US, I can see why they'd want to leave it out  

You obviously have not seen the documentary or even read what it's about.  Of course that did not stop you from making inane comments.

Do you come to these forums just to be some sort of contrarian because you lack other outlets?

Get a hobby!  If fact heres one for you.  Read about WWII history, you clearly seem to be lacking in that area.

Claiming the director was influenced by the current political climate, and that the film was swayed because of it is one of the dumbest things I have ever read someone pull out of their ass.

Read and learn before your fingers move.

http://www.pbs.org/thewar/

P.S.

Quote[/b] ]There is good news for smokers. The surgeon general's warnings are different on the sides of each pack. Mine says, "Surgeon General Warning: Cigarette smoking may Cause fetal injury or premature birth." Hey, f__k it! just don't get the ones that say lung cancer.

HA-ha!  Guess what, Bill Hicks died of cancer.  He was a funny moron!

[Akira 0]

Politcs has been left out of it, other than a brief mention of the causes of the Pearl Harbor attack. Politics isn't the motive nor even a concern for the documentary since it isn't the focal point. As the veteran's interviewed have stated they just knew they were attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on them. Many were young kids who wanted to "escape" their small town or wanted "adventure." It wasn't till after the discovery of many attrocities that they realized the war had to be fought, but that was only an after thought.

My parent's saw Ken Burns speak (and I barely missed him) and he stated that he had no intention of making a WW2 documentary till he heard the rate at which the veterans were dying. He felt their stories needed to be captured and preserved.

As for my personal critique, I really wish there was less narrations and more of the veteran's interviews. I wish the interviews pushed the documentary along rather than a narrator setup and then interviews. I also wish A greater "sampling" had been taken...small towns as well as large cities...how did they all change?

I do think the inclusion of Japanese Americans and their experiences in internment camps coupled with black veterans ad discrimination is brilliant.

[Shadow NX 1]

It would be nice to see the US making documentaries on the german, british russian side of the coin for an american audience to show the whole "scale" of the war. But unfortunately the general viewer isnt interested so if a movie is about russia, it usually turns out to be a shitty action movie such as "Enemy at the gates", otherwise noone would watch it.

I realy wonder how many people watched "letters from Iwo Jema" vs "Flags of our fathers". And noone can denie that the first was actually better.

Amen to that Flags of our fathers was ok but also pretty boring exept the end that was kinda sad but Letters from Iwo Jima was exellent and really gut wrenching, had to wartch it again in japanese cause it really was a intense movie.

But once more i go offtopic, well i look forward to this documentary even if i find the fact bit sad that they only focus on one side.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

It would be nice to see the US making documentaries on the german, british russian side of the coin for an american audience to show the whole "scale" of the war. But unfortunately the general viewer isnt interested so if a movie is about russia, it usually turns out to be a shitty action movie such as "Enemy at the gates", otherwise noone would watch it.

I realy wonder how many people watched "letters from Iwo Jema"  vs "Flags of our fathers". And noone can denie that the first was actually better.

Amen to that Flags of our fathers was ok but also pretty boring exept the end that was kinda sad but Letters from Iwo Jima was exellent and really gut wrenching, had to wartch it again in japanese cause it really was a intense movie.

But once more i go offtopic, well i look forward to this documentary even if i find the fact bit sad that they only focus on one side.

Anyone who watched "Flags of Our Fathers" and thought it was a good movie, knows dick about the history of WWII in the Pacific.

[-Snafu- 78]

It would be nice to see the US making documentaries on the german, british russian side of the coin for an american audience to show the whole "scale" of the war. But unfortunately the general viewer isnt interested so if a movie is about russia, it usually turns out to be a shitty action movie such as "Enemy at the gates", otherwise noone would watch it.

I realy wonder how many people watched "letters from Iwo Jema"  vs "Flags of our fathers". And noone can denie that the first was actually better.

Amen to that Flags of our fathers was ok but also pretty boring exept the end that was kinda sad but Letters from Iwo Jima was exellent and really gut wrenching, had to wartch it again in japanese cause it really was a intense movie.

But once more i go offtopic, well i look forward to this documentary even if i find the fact bit sad that they only focus on one side.

Anyone who watched "Flags of Our Fathers" and thought it was a good movie, knows dick about the history of WWII in the Pacific.

Well movies are usually watched for entertainment rather than for historical info so your meaning of 'good' doesn't mean anything in this case.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

It would be nice to see the US making documentaries on the german, british russian side of the coin for an american audience to show the whole "scale" of the war. But unfortunately the general viewer isnt interested so if a movie is about russia, it usually turns out to be a shitty action movie such as "Enemy at the gates", otherwise noone would watch it.

I realy wonder how many people watched "letters from Iwo Jema"  vs "Flags of our fathers". And noone can denie that the first was actually better.

Amen to that Flags of our fathers was ok but also pretty boring exept the end that was kinda sad but Letters from Iwo Jima was exellent and really gut wrenching, had to wartch it again in japanese cause it really was a intense movie.

But once more i go offtopic, well i look forward to this documentary even if i find the fact bit sad that they only focus on one side.

Anyone who watched "Flags of Our Fathers" and thought it was a good movie, knows dick about the history of WWII in the Pacific.

Well movies are usually watched for entertainment rather than for historical info so your meaning of 'good' doesn't mean anything in this case.

Doh...your right. Ok I should have simply stated that there were many things that could have been pointed out for historical inaccuracies, and left out the word 'dick'.

[-Snafu- 78]

It would be nice to see the US making documentaries on the german, british russian side of the coin for an american audience to show the whole "scale" of the war. But unfortunately the general viewer isnt interested so if a movie is about russia, it usually turns out to be a shitty action movie such as "Enemy at the gates", otherwise noone would watch it.

I realy wonder how many people watched "letters from Iwo Jema"  vs "Flags of our fathers". And noone can denie that the first was actually better.

Amen to that Flags of our fathers was ok but also pretty boring exept the end that was kinda sad but Letters from Iwo Jima was exellent and really gut wrenching, had to wartch it again in japanese cause it really was a intense movie.

But once more i go offtopic, well i look forward to this documentary even if i find the fact bit sad that they only focus on one side.

Anyone who watched "Flags of Our Fathers" and thought it was a good movie, knows dick about the history of WWII in the Pacific.

Well movies are usually watched for entertainment rather than for historical info so your meaning of 'good' doesn't mean anything in this case.

Doh...your right.  Ok I should have simply stated that there were many things that could have been pointed out for historical inaccuracies, and left out the word 'dick'.  

If you want to point something out just do it. Don't be an arsehole and write it in a know it all, sarcastic tone.

I enjoyed watching the film so I thought it was good. It's historical accuracy may not have been up to spec but it was still a nice film. Take the film Black Hawk Down for example. Brilliant film, lots of action etc. But some of the events in the film were totally wrong. For example Eversmann did not go to Wolcott's crash site on foot, he was actually on the 'Lost Convoy'.

Do you understand?

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Uh yea.  Thats why I apologized for the way I put it.  You are a bit overly sensitive to be taking my agreeing with you as some sort of sarcastic "asshole" remark.

[chops 111]

You obviously have not seen the documentary or even read what it's about. Of course that did not stop you from making inane comments.

Do you come to these forums just to be some sort of contrarian because you lack other outlets?

Get a hobby! If fact heres one for you. Read about WWII history, you clearly seem to be lacking in that area.

Claiming the director was influenced by the current political climate, and that the film was swayed because of it is one of the dumbest things I have ever read someone pull out of their ass.

Read and learn before your fingers move.

Oh my dear child! I didn't mean for you to get so upset! I promise to send you all my potential forum posts, so you can check that you agree 100% with them before they are submitted, lest you treat us all to another tanty

There is nothing in my post that indicates a lack of historical knowledge of WWII.

I watched a bit of that excerpt, but was turned off by the amount of time the director/producer spent in front of the camera, telling us how great he/she is.