I just finished Ken Burns' Ernest Hemingway documentary. I am not an avid reader; Hemingway is one of only four authors that has grabbed me in such a way that I have read multiple books of theirs. I have also watched multiple Ken Burns documentaries. I have not read or viewed ALL of either man's work. My breadth of experience with both follows:

Hemingway:
The Sun Also Rises
For Whom the Bell Tolls
The Old Man and the Sea
Death and the Afternoon
The Complete Short Stories

Burns:
The Civil War
Lewis and Clark
The National Parks (haven't finished it yet)
The Central Park Five
The Roosevelts
The Vietnam War
Hemingway

One sort of disclaimer I feel is relevant is the fact that I can almost always disassociate an artist from his art. I mean that I can enjoy a film or a song or a book if it's creator's attitude doesn't necessarily align with mine.

I have always thought that Ken Burns did a fine job of seeming impartial and objective, despite his films being typically featured on PBS, which can have a leftward-leaning attitude. I say seeming, because I don't have a first-hand experience of any of the topics covered in the films I have seen, so I can't know whether he is actually presenting things in a truly objective way. I think his films are an extremely comprehensive and thoroughly researched body of work, and I have learned a lot from them. He doesn't go out of his way to paint this person as the bad guy, or worship any personalities either. Therefore, I viewed the Hemingway film with the attitude that it was objective and accurate.

Ever since reading The Sun Also Rises, which was the first one I read, I was curious about the man behind it. What research I did turned up a life full of adventure and misadventure, in about equal parts. The man led a truly dynamic life. He was almost the definition of a hopeless romantic, and applied a romantic outlook to most everything else too. I suppose all true artists are quite eccentric in one way or another; he wore his eccentricity on his sleeve, for the most part. He seemed, at times, to be the quintessential man's man, but had some odd attitudes too, that he wasn't so loud about, and ran in his blood to boot.

Anyway, I am not going to summarize the documentary, or write my own kind of half-assed impression of Hemingway. I'd encourage anyone who is Hemingway fan, or even merely just curious about him, to watch Ken Burns' film. Watch other Burns films too; they are, as far as I can tell by the ones I've seen, all quite excellent.

What are others' thoughts on both Hemingway and Burns?

Burns is such a blithering liberal asshole that I stopped watching his docs. Just cant stand to support him in any way.

I love Hemingway. The brevity of his style is beautiful.

quote:

Originally posted by nukeandpave:
Burns is such a blithering liberal asshole that I stopped watching his docs. Just cant stand to support him in any way.

I love Hemingway. The brevity of his style is beautiful.

Do you think Burns' actively pushes his blithering liberal asshole agenda in his documentaries?

Do you endorse Hemingway's womanizing, habitual lying, alcoholism, gender-switching sexual roleplay, and potential communist-sympathizer attitudes and tendencies?

I made the disclaimer I did for a reason. We often look past potential shortcomings of some, while fixating on those of others. I don't think it makes for productive discussion.

Edited to include dishonesty, in Hemingway's list of ignorable negative characteristics. I am not here to defend Burns, or make an effort to magnify Hemingway's shortcomings. I do think it is odd that we are so able and willing to address solely the creator (in your comment: Burns) or solely the product (in your comment: Hemingway's writing style) to suit our attitude.

Hemingway is among my favorite authors. The Burn's doc was a fair look at the man and the myth. Hemingway was complicated. Larger than life and often a piece of shit person. We can celebrate the work and the man while also admitting his flaws.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

Originally posted by nukeandpave:
Burns is such a blithering liberal asshole that I stopped watching his docs. Just cant stand to support him in any way.

I love Hemingway. The brevity of his style is beautiful.

Do you think Burns' actively pushes his blithering liberal asshole agenda in his documentaries?

Do you endorse Hemingway's womanizing, habitual lying, alcoholism, gender-switching sexual roleplay, and potential communist-sympathizer attitudes and tendencies?

I made the disclaimer I did for a reason. We often look past potential shortcomings of some, while fixating on those of others. I don't think it makes for productive discussion.

Edited to include dishonesty, in Hemingway's list of ignorable negative characteristics. I am not here to defend Burns, or make an effort to magnify Hemingway's shortcomings. I do think it is odd that we are so able and willing to address solely the creator (in your comment: Burns) or solely the product (in your comment: Hemingway's writing style) to suit our attitude.

Civil War is the only one I have seen. Dont really care if he's impartial or not. Like some actors, musicians etc, Burns as a person is reprehensible enough that I avoid their work. Hemingway (AFAIK) didnt make a point of telling half his audience what pieces of shit they were.

I have certainly not seen whatever it is you have seen, nukeandpave. Tell me where I can find it or read it; I am curious.

I agree Burns is a simpering leftist apologist, but of all his works, I feel Burns' political ideology comes through the least in his Hemingway documentary.

Well, I admittedly never bothered looking into Burns as a person, considering he didn't have the same mystique as Hemingway. It appears he certainly is firmly planted in the left. I can separate that from his works though. I have never gotten the sense of any attempt at political influence, in the films I have watched. Lord knows the Civil War is ripe with potential opportunity, as a subject; yet I didn't feel like he picked a side.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
It appears he certainly is firmly planted in the left. I can separate that from his works though.

Burns can't.

quote:

I have never gotten the sense of any attempt at political influence, in the films I have watched.

Have you not seen the Franklin Delano Roosevelt portions of The Roosevelts: An Intimate History? Pure hero worship.

Have you not seen Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson?

Have you not seen the bleeding heart, America-is-an-imperialist-satan bullshit in The Vietnam War?

Here: https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...0035034?r=5130055034

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I have certainly not seen whatever it is you have seen, nukeandpave. Tell me where I can find it or read it; I am curious.

I dont recall the details but I have heard him go off on unprovoked political rants when he was just there to talk about his latest documentary. The first one was on Dennis Millers podcast, where he was beyond rude. Dont specifically remember the other times but they left a STRONG impression.

I'd be interested in hearing that Miller podcast. Is it available?

Burns' name was on the "Country Music" doc, not sure how much of a hand he had in it. And like "Hemingway", pretty fair minded.

That said, I've seen most of his stuff and his bias is either in your face or subversive. So much so in fact, it taints the viewing of the two mentioned above. I expect the slant and see it or find myself second guessing my interpretation, all taking away from enjoying the film for what it's supposed to be. Burns' past precedes him.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Have you not seen the Franklin Delano Roosevelt portions of The Roosevelts: An Intimate History? Pure hero worship.

Have you not seen Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson?

Have you not seen the bleeding heart, America-is-an-imperialist-satan bullshit in The Vietnam War?

As stated in my OP, I have not seen Unforgivable Blackness.

I was wrong in my impression of Ken Burns' films, up to this point; I will approach them with caution from here. Reflecting on what I have learned about FDR between now and when I viewed that film, I will agree about that portion of the Roosevelt film; he did paint him in an almost saint-like fashion, when that is certainly not accurate.

When it comes The Vietnam War, I don't even really know where to begin getting an unbiased base of knowledge on that conflict. I have had the opportunity to interact with more than a few Vietnam veterans, though in a casual setting, and certainly not engaged in a meaningful discussion about the conflict. However, I don't know that a former soldier or Marine's opinions on the matter would be all that helpful, as their sphere of influence is unique, and any reinforced opinions would likely be biased in a big way. Thank you, Para, for the link to the The Vietnam War thread. Quite eye-opening for me, in regards to Burns, and full of good info and prompts for further research on the war.

I guess it's damned hard to get matter-of-fact reporting on anything, new or old.

I represent the younger portion of the demographic, here on SIGforum. I have learning to do; I respect senior members' input, and appreciate your recommendations.

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:
That said, I've seen most of his stuff and his bias is either in your face or subversive. So much so in fact, it taints the viewing of the two mentioned above. I expect the slant and see it or find myself second guessing my interpretation, all taking away from enjoying the film for what it's supposed to be. Burns' past precedes him.

I agree with this sentiment; this is how I feel now as well. The fact that I felt I was viewing impartial material highlights the subversive nature of his productions. As a documentarian, it is extremely dishonest to disguise your personal political opinions as historical fact, and lying by omission, as was largely the case in the FDR portion of that particular film, is still lying.

Thanks again, Gents.

Edit...
Another thing I have learned over the past couple years is relevant here: I think a lot young people are under the impression that political divisiveness and deviousness is a relatively recent phenomenon. They fail to put together the not-coincidental shared timeline of the internet and proliferation of social and mass media. Politics have been shit for a long, long time. The majority of my friends are between 15 and 25 years older than me, and they have taught me much. I used to perceive our current downturn as just that: current. When in fact it has been a decline decades in the making; perhaps even more than a century. I have a lot of work to do, looking back through that century, to better understand what's going on now.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I'd be interested in hearing that Miller podcast. Is it available?

IIRC, it was on The Dennis Miller Option. I searched for a clip but did not find one.

Dennis is such a nice guy, he actually had Burns on again to discus a later doc.