Burns agrees to re-edit, Hispanics going too far?

[ChaplinGuy]

Not sure how many of you are following this story, but as an avid Burns fan and film guy I've been watching this unfold (and eagerly awaiting the release of this project).

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/14/navarrette/index.html

What I am a little bemused about is why the Hispanic community is focusing on this as its target when so much is happening within (and surrounding) the Latino community in the U.S. right now. I'm left with the conclusion that by hoping to include themselves in this iconic piece of American history, they hope to make some inroads with the uber conservatives trying to shut the borders and deport illegal immigrants.

As a producer, I have a problem with changing any filmmaker's artistic vision once it's completed. Every day I have to make decisions about important stuff to leave on the "cutting room" floor (in quotes because we use digital post these days...). However, balance is key and I understand the want of being included in this film.

Does leave me wondering what some of America's greatest films would have looked like had they been pressured to cave to a special interest.

[Matty the Damned]

I'm left with the conclusion that by hoping to include themselves in this iconic piece of American history, they hope to make some inroads with the uber conservatives trying to shut the borders and deport illegal immigrants.

Maybe. Or perhaps

There is an ongoing battle between filmmaker Ken Burns and a coalition of Hispanic veterans, organizations and lawmakers over plans by Burns and the Public Broadcasting System to release a documentary on World War II that ignores the 500,000 Hispanics who served in the U.S. military during the war.

they merely wish to be recognised for their service to their country during WWII.

MtD

[ChaplinGuy]

True, Matty, true. And I completely understand that. However, it seems odd to focus on something that's already complete (and probably a very good historical depiction of the war itself). I'm just struck by the aggressive push to change something that was already done rather than push for creating their own voice through another production.

Films, documentary or otherwise, are the stories and interpretations of the filmmaker. Not panel discussions open to inclusion by all who feel their voice should be heard. I'm sure there are many other things that Burns leaves out of this project, too - and no doubt, in hindsight, viewers will wish he'd focused more on certain aspects over others.

My hope is that this does not begin to erode our creative space in the documentary field. There are too many other ways to ensure that a group's voice is heard that don't require the muffling of someone else's.

[jack]

same thing was done recently by pbs to a documentary about the how the US Muslim community is under extreme pressure and is feeling threatened by a growing militant faction and the politics of the situation. PBS dumped the show. Their first excuse was because one of the producers was a conservative. Now they are saying it wasnt a complete product.
NBC and MSNBC changed its program because of pressure from racist pimps Sharpton and Jackson when it fired Don Imus for his remarks about African Americans, remarks he had been making for years. I quit watching him when he called Quen Eifel(?) a cleaning lady. Thats what you do. If you dont like something you dont watch it, you dont lobby to change the product or take the product off the air.
Clinton lobbied to change a recent semi documentary that I think was called the "road to 911", and some parts of the film were actually changed. I guess semi documentary is wrong,it was more like fiction based on facts,like many films.
In case you hadnt noticed free speech is under attack from all sides.

[ChaplinGuy]

I caught the coverage on the NewsHour last night (a PBS program) and they dug a little deeper into the influence of two prominent Hispanic congressional reps who pretty much pressured PBS to change the documentary or face funding withdrawls.

No doubt they were getting pressure from the Hispanic lobby to pressure PBS to pressure Burns (who would be without a distributor if PBS pulled it).

I guess this just makes me not want to watch it, which is terrible as I've enjoyed his films for years. It just now has a feeling of being non-authentic, of being manufactured to include someone's special interests.

I also wish Burns had the guts to say "if you don't like it, don't watch it" - in other words, stand by his decisions on which stories to tell. What's next? The modern pro-Confederacy southerns ask him to go back and include their perspective on how the South didn't lose the Civil War?

[James1941]

Sorry guys, totally disagree with you.

I think that the problem is with the title = The War.  If you are going to make a documentary about 'The War' then you have to include the contributions of every ethnic group/country that took part, the white Americans, the black Americans, the Hispanics, the British, the Australians, the French, etc., etc., etc.

I am only guessing here but it sounds to me like this documentary is going to show how 'white Americans' won WWII.  If so then Burns should be honest and the title should be 'How white Americans won WWII' or some such bullshit.  But then, if he was totally honest, no one would watch it.  Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, knows that there were a lot of others contributing to the victory

Any documentary should be honest, including the title, if it is not totally honest then it is liable to criticism.

James.

[ChaplinGuy]

Just an update on this thread. I saw Burns last night here in Portland as part of his speaking tour to promote the film. He showed about an hour of clips from the more than 14-hour documentary (which was brilliant and absolutely, gorgeously soaked in Americana), and took questions from the audience.

I was surprised that no one asked a question about the re-edit issue, and after seeing the number of WWII vets in the audience who stood up to thank him I decided against bringing up such a highly-charged debate. It was a shame to be that close to the man and not be able to address him, but the atmosphere of the evening was one of respect for those who fought and died, and the generation of survivors who won't be with us for much longer.

Strongly encourage everyone to check out this film when it airs beginning September 27th.

[aupointillimite]

This doesn't surprise me in the least... how black, Hispanic, Japanese, Native Americans, and even gay Americans could fight for a country and society that loathed them and treated them as second-class citizens is completely beyond me.

I have an idea it's because everyone on the Allied side knew damn well that world would be better off with the Axis defeated, no matter how many injustices occurred everyday on their side... it is nothing less than a  testament of character to minority American, British, Canadian, Australian, and Soviet soldiers to be willing to die for countires which ten years before the War and ten years after it would discriminate against them in horrendous ways. 

I really think that Cracker America owes them a debt of gratitude... because if all of those people had chosed sedition over service... well, things would probably have been much more differently.  Can you imagine millions of urban blacks burning draft cards because the US Government couldn't be bothered to stop lynchings and poll taxes?  They didn't do it.  If they had... well... Heil Muthafuckin' Hitler.

Have the contributions of these people been generally ignored for the past 60 years?  Yes. 

Do they have every right to demand the honor and recognition that is long overdue to them by white Americans who seem to mistakenly think that the addition of a Jew and an Italian into a WWII film accurately reflects the historical record?  Yes.

Americans love to mention how if not for the US, everyone "would be speaking German."  Well, maybe if not for the honorable service of millions of oppressed Americans who selflessly forgot the thousands of official and unofficial injustices, acts of discrimination, and hatred... and actually recognized and fought against a much greater evil... we would all be sprechening the Deutsch right now.

[ChaplinGuy]

Hey there, aupoint, have been wondering where you've been! Glad to see you're still alive and full of spice, my friend.

Your post reminds me of something that Burns said last night. He mentioned that in an interview with one of the veterans from Waterbury, CT who was involved in the capture of several German soldiers, he told the story of how one of the German POWs later showed his documentation to be the future "governor of the U.S. territories of Connecticut" -- and that just blew my mind away. That the Germans had such thought-out, detailed plans for the invasion and rule of the U.S.

[Bucko]

In answer to the question posed in the title of the thread, no. I do not believe that asking for fair representation in a historical documentary is "going too far".

If this were an fictionalization I'd think it was a tempest in a teapot. But as the patriotism of Hispanics in this country seems to be judged by many on the basis of their uneasiness to loose their language, I do find it an interesting counterpoint. History is only relevant to most Americans in as much as it better illustrates the present. With the current levels of sacrifice to the war in Iraq, I find such concerns entirely understandable.

Brent
(Who keeps a broad perspective)

[Cliff]

I really think that Cracker America owes them a debt of gratitude...

Not cool, even if meant to be lighthearted.
------------------------
In any event, I don't see any harm in people protesting a documentary to be shown on public television.  It's a free country.  And I don't get the pro-confederacy/south didn't lose the civil war analogy.  The South did lose the war, so any such protest would be revision of history, unless one is arguing that Hispanics didn't fight in WWII.

[jack]

no producer should be forced to change his work by any group or government agency. He should put it out and let the public judge it. If Burns had any guts he would try and sell his product to the free market rather than working with the government run station. Its a fucking waste of our tax dollar. What about the History channel?

[aupointillimite]

no producer should be forced to change his work by any group or government agency. He should put it out and let the public judge it. If Burns had any guts he would try and sell his product to the free market rather than working with the government run station. Its a fucking waste of our tax dollar. What about the History channel?

Have you seen Cities of the Underworld?  It's awesome!

[jack]

yes,it is good.

[Grinch]

In the units I served in we didn't give a flying flook about skin color or any other such thing.  Either you were "high speed" or you weren't.  We were all green and brown with camo paint on and we all bled red when things went wrong.
Why does it have to be about Hispanic this, black that, gay whatever.  The soldiers that fought for America from America were American.  End of story.

Humans inherently dislike things that are different.  If you keep telling everyone "Look at me!  I'm different than you!"
Eventually someone will dislike you because of it.  Why not just be a good person regardless of how much melanin your skin contains?
 Really I can see if your skin is different than mine without you telling me.  Frankly I don't care.  If we all took this attitude racism disappears.
Same goes for religion, sexual preference, anything you like.

I'm not my father.
Your not your father.
The sins of our fathers DON"T become the sins of our sons.
Let it go, be a good person.
Judge others on their actions not their appearance or beliefs.
Pretty simple concept.

[ChaplinGuy]

Updating this old thread, since tonight is the premiere of this documentary on PBS. Hope all who have been interested in this issue try and catch some of this film.

Also, there's a more recent article about the dust-up with the Hispanic lobby to change the film by adding Latino interviews:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20809730/

Still not sure how I feel about Burns' decision to re-edit, but as the Hispanic lobby turns rabid even after the re-edit on his part I think he's coming out on top as having tried to appease while not caving to it becoming "The War: As told by Hispanic Americans."

Hope you tune in.

[Dachshund]

Still not sure how I feel about Burns' decision to re-edit, but as the Hispanic lobby turns rabid even after the re-edit on his part I think he's coming out on top as having tried to appease while not caving to it becoming "The War: As told by Hispanic Americans."

I think we know how you feel. Maybe I'm wrong, but your posts always sound racist to me. I watched Burns give a very gracious interview on this subject, and I do plan to tune in.

[ChaplinGuy]

Dachs, it's unfortunate to hear you say that, as it's simply untrue. If you'll take minute to look beyond the surface and really think about what I'm saying here, it's to in fact look beyond race and discuss whether it's right to change someone's vision to include every last possible perspective because of pressure from a few.

It could be a non-ethnic group demanding inclusion in this film and I'd still question whether that adheres to the standards of how he should have been able to produce a film on this subject, or any other.

All that aside, I hope you watch. I for one look forward to seeing how it turned out with these additional (important) stories told throughout.

[Matty the Damned]

I agree with Dox here Chap. I can't understand what you have against the Hispanic veterans.

MtD

[Miss Philicia]

ChaplinGuy, it's not just this thread, it's also others you're started over the past several months.  And it's not just WHAT you choose to discuss (though that's a big part of it), but often how you frame things.  Any one of these things in isolation might be easy to dismiss as not necessarily indicative of some sort of racism, but taken together it does leave me quite uncomfortable.  While I don't think you're riding around town in a white sheet, you really need to check some of this stuff at the door.

[ChaplinGuy]

Hmm. I suppose that this is really just not the place to engage in this kind of critical thinking about anything that is connected to race. But then again, I rather think that is kind of my point. We have so many problems with race in this country, and it begins with our inability to talk about it for fear of being cast as racists.

Point taken, Philly, and I'll take heed to engage with others more interested in a deeper analysis of the issues in the future.

[Miss Philicia]

Huh?  So you're basically blaming the board for the way you frame your questions? 

OK, sure... whatever.

[jack]

An artist should be free to present his project without this kind of pressure.  I guess he has to change his art because its being paid for by a government financed station.
If he really felt it would destroy the integrity of his product I guess he could have gone to the History Channel or some other private network.
Being called a racist because you wont succumb to this kind of pressure is an old game.  No one wants to be called a racist. I find many of the people who play this game are usually the racists.

[jack]

I did see an interview with Burns yesterday. Who does his hair? The guy is not a racist.

[Dachshund]

I did see an interview with Burns yesterday. Who does his hair? The guy is not a racist.

Huh? Who called Burns a racist? Once again posting without reading or reason.

In a statement, Burns, who also directed PBS documentaries on the Civil War, jazz and baseball, said he tried to respond to concerns of his critics and "address them in a way that was respectful." A PBS statement said, " 'The War' explores the human experience of war by focusing on the testimonies of just a handful of individuals from four American towns, and honoring all veterans of the Second World War."

[jack]

well,someone must have thought he was being racist by leaving Mexican Americans out his art. This is the problem you have when you accept government money or support. If you do,your project or art is subject to their whims, political correctness, and whatever new foolishness is in style.
who knows what other projects or art has been perverted by the powers that be? Dems or Reps.
There are 200 stations on my Television,why do producers need government subsidies to get their shows on the boob tube? Other than a few cooking shows on Sat morning and Sunday mystery, I find very little worth watching on the government station.

[Dachshund]

There are some fascinating articles and reviews about The War, but unfortunately most folks will judge and criticize without bothering to watch. I'm not a huge Burns fan, I find him more of a storyteller than a historian, but I do appreciate his craft. I guess I find it interesting because my father is still alive and a veteran of WWII and it is cool to talk with him about one of the most important times in our history while he is still around. It's sad really that people can be so narrow minded that they won't even watch a show on PBS. Here is Burns being interviewed, touching on the subject of Japanese internment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i10WjA7KPa8

[Miss Philicia]

I watched it last night, and I agree with Doxie that Burns is a bit of mixed bag for me.  Definitely a storyteller, though a quite talented one.  I suppose it's a very good approach to take for television.

It's a bit of a commitment to spend every night this week being saturated by Ken, but I probably will do it anyway.  I found myself a bit bored by the last 45 minutes last night.