Pages

September 26, 2007

Ken Burns’ “World War II” — about as so-so as I expected

The biggest way in which it confirmed my limited expectations is that it is NOT about WWII, just about the U.S. part in it.

Burns missed some excellent educational opportunities, such as letting more people know the USSR took 90 percent of Allied WWII casualties. He provides no detail about Lend-Lease; so far (and I’ve been catching bits and pieces), I’ve seen nothing about Allied leader wartime summits.

Where’s the French Resistance? Where’s Vichy? Where’s the war before U.S. involvement?

1 comment:

  1. Jaysus Christ on a cross Mr Athiest man! The documentary is about Americans and how these American townspeople were affected by the war. Let the former Soviets deal with their history of WWII. Burns and crew did go into detail about the horrific losses of Russian civilians and soldiers but that was not the story he was aiming to tell. It was a great work of art if not a great historical chronicle of the war. His film making is purely American, there is no doubt about that.
    Anyway thanks for posting about the film as I feel like the only person to have seen it in all the SF bay area.

    ReplyDelete

Your comments are appreciated, as is at least a modicum of politeness.
Comments are moderated, so yours may not appear immediately.
Due to various forms of spamming, comments with professional websites, not your personal website or blog, may be rejected.