Documentary film maker Ken Burns endorses Obama
posted at 8:10 pm on December 18, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Great. Now Obama can rely on loooong, hideously expensive and yet tedious campaign ads featuring motion control moves on still images with wistful fiddle music in the soundtrack to sell us the dream that is Barack Obama.
Manchester, N.H. – New Hampshire resident and famed filmmaker Ken Burns said today that he is throwing his support behind Sen. Barack Obama for president, complaining that “recent events” and the negative tone of the campaign compelled him to come forward.
Burns, who lives in Walpole, said he had originally planned to stay neutral because there were things he liked about all the Democratic candidates for president.
When asked what specifically prompted him to come forward, Burns said, “Those recent events are pretty obvious.”
Burns also cited Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war, but Hillary’s latest displays of her pure evil obviously tipped him over the edge.
In some seriousness, Burns is probably the country’s greatest living documentary film maker. He could be an asset to Obama in New Hampshire. But most other documentary film makers hate him now because, after the Civil War series, he can waltz into PBS and say “I want to make a 26.4 hour documentary about weevils, and it’ll only cost you 78 million dollars.” And PBS will happily sign off on that. All other documentarians have to live with 2-hour slots and budgets topping out at about $50.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Absolutely.
Valiant on December 18, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Wow. It’s like Obama is … I don’t know, magic or something.
Ali-Bubba on December 18, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Ya gotta admit that ‘The Civil War’ is hands down the best of the best. Nice jewel in Mr.O’s cap.
Limerick on December 18, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Agreed. “Jazz” and “The Civil War” were great. But his latest, “The War”, was tedious and tendentiously left-leaning. So he could be a good fit for Obama after all.
WasatchMan on December 18, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Maybe if Obama is elected we’ll finally get some good main stream documentaries on the War on Terror
bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Burns is just paying the first dibs fee for the Obama doc rights.
Dusty on December 18, 2007 at 8:26 PM
nc
amend2 on December 18, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Because the only Ken Burns documentary I have ever seen was “The War,” I assumed all of his work would be hours of tedious borefom slapped together with iMovie slideshow software.
Are you telling me the other docs he did aren’t like that? ‘Cause that “War” one was a complete waste of time that I didn’t finish.
ScottMcC on December 18, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Well I knew he was a lib, he does make a hell of a documentary though. I agree, his documentary on the “War of northern aggression” was the best. The War was a bit slow and hard pressed to hold your attention.
conservnut on December 18, 2007 at 8:31 PM
In the ‘Civil War’ he took the route of Catton and Coddington….he told the nuts and bolts and the side stories that make history come alive. It was a great piece of work. In ‘The War’ he took ‘Oh how sad’ track. It was horrible.
Limerick on December 18, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Shock. Horror. Surprise. Incredulousness.
All are feelings I am not experiencing right now.
Helluva talented fella.
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Damn. I’m beginning to think we will be better off when Democrats and Liberals openly hate us (black folks) again.
Rest assured, the Oprah backlash is just beginning. In the end their own self loathing will rise to racism. “Leave Hillary Alone!!!”
Then we can come home to the Republicans.
Agrippa2k on December 18, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Actually Burns “documentary” on the War Between the States ws full of holes.
Gatordoug on December 18, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Underwhelming.
But the “Civil War” was a masterpiece.
Zorro on December 18, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Or form your own party and prove you can stand on your own two feet…
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Wonder if he’s applied for a copyright on The Apostate President.
RedWinged Blackbird on December 18, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Picking Obama shows how Dem voters really have no clue what the job of President entails. Being a 2-year US Senator is NOT experience for being the top Executive of the entire country.
Executives usually have to produce something and manage very large organizations. US Senators sometimes produce nothing and have only a meager staff (some of whom are unpaid volunteers from college) and have their lobbyists/fundraisers write most of the legislation that gets introduced.
Way to go Dems, pick the LEAST qualified candidate, who has even less experience then the former First Lady-turned-US Senator Hillary Clinton (who was Co-President for 8 years, unless some big initiative is controversial then she was a quiet observer to Bill, THE PRESIDENT).
Neo on December 18, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Nah…”Cornbread at Ramadan”
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 8:47 PM
I know what you’re getting at…but really…what exactly _does_ qualify you for the presidency? A degree in Awesome Americanness from Elitist U?
I want someone that fully understands the Constitution – not only the wording, but the ‘why’ behind the words. Someone that understands the role and responsiblity of being POTUS. Someone that will honor the trust placed in them by we the people.
Sure…being a CEO or whatever may provide life-skills that are helpful…but I don’t see it as in any way _critical_. There is no reason why Obama _shouldn’t_ be perfectly qualified to be prez.
He just isn’t
Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Why does everyone have to endorse someone and thus make me forever think of that when I see their work? Ugh.
Spirit of 1776 on December 18, 2007 at 8:54 PM
I’m unsure how you could weave any history of the Civil War and not leave out something. Look at the bookshelves in the store. It was, and is, one of the most fascinating and complicated periods in American history. I still give him an A+.
Limerick on December 18, 2007 at 8:55 PM
One of the reasons that I think that “The War” did not go down as well as “The Civil War” is kinda of off the wall.
In The Civil War, he had to use historians and stills to make it. Those historians had an obvious love of the topic and made the storys come alive. In The War he made use of those that were actually there. It seems very counter intuitive, but somehow having actual eye witnesses to the event took away from the story that The Civil War was.
Jim708 on December 18, 2007 at 8:58 PM
You have *no* idea just how truthful this is, Bryan.
Unless you’ve locked in a major corporate sponsor, you can pretty much kiss off any chance that your program will get picked up.
The Ugly American on December 18, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Really? I’m surprised so many of you found it tedious.
Between the awe inspiring stories by the vets, the letters, the ample coverage of the Pacific theatre and the examination of the effects of WW2 on four towns of normal America, I was riveted.
SouthernDem on December 18, 2007 at 9:01 PM
The Civil War was his masterpiece, making strong and moving impact. I greatly admire that work, though upon re-viewing that work, one hears/sees/thinks Burns’ view that is not without his own prejudicial leanings. He is by no means impartial, the mark of a true documentarian. But as “his” works, so long as he funds his own works without public tax benefit, he has the right as artistic director to present things as he sees them. But using tax dollars to fund what increasingly becomes a “they didn’t know better” degree of arrogance in subsequent DOCUMENTARY format needs redress.
Of course, Burns WOULD latch onto Obama as the liberal prophet of “change” in America, and Obama will certainly enjoy the benefits from our PBS tax proceeds that enabled Burns to launch his reputation. Here we go with a DOCUMENTARY dignifying a (blank experience) slate of intrigue as the “just what we need” candidate in this, our hour of despair…
squandered talent.
maverick muse on December 18, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Look a group of historians wrote a book about his crockumentary, Sheby Foote, who narrated much of it was not happy about the end result.
It was not as factual as it could have been, trust me, I have studied the war for 33 years. There were fictional characters, (Sullivan Balloo)lack of context in many occassions, and outright bias (Like calling Stonewall Jackson a cold-blooded killer) Incidents like Ft. Pillow was presented with almost none of the bountiful eveidence and testimonies about what occurred there. The Battle of the Crater was presented in an absurdly inaccurate fashion. The list is long and undistinguished. Burns even admitted he was not purely presenting history.
Gatordoug on December 18, 2007 at 9:09 PM
I do not like my tax dollars going to leftist propagandists PBS and Burns.
AZCON on December 18, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Add NPR to that rant.
AZCON on December 18, 2007 at 9:15 PM
I was aquainted with a documentarian who tried to live off the scraps that were left over after Burns feasted at PBS. So I’m aware of how true what I wrote is, believe me.
Bryan on December 18, 2007 at 9:19 PM
So what? Another knucklehead liberal votes for … nothing.
Jaibones on December 18, 2007 at 9:33 PM
WHO CARESSSSSS
msipes on December 18, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Baffled. .
Texyank on December 18, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Burns will shortly feel the need to make a special side but equal endorsement for Richardson.
Speakup on December 18, 2007 at 10:22 PM
I really don’t care who Ken Burns endorses. I appreciate his work, but otherwise, he and his opinions are of no importance to me.
katieanne on December 18, 2007 at 10:28 PM
spot on, bryan.
wistful, no less.
/snort
JazzBass on December 18, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Ah, no. His “documentaries” remind me of a slightley-underweight retarded version of roger and me. He achieves “historical” look by using dull colors and bad voiceovers. Pretty much aiming for a leni riefenstahl look to his “documentaries”, he fails miserably. 99% of the stuff on the History Channel, like Sherman’s March, is soooooo much better.
TheEJS on December 18, 2007 at 11:26 PM
I stopped watching the propaganda filled,one sided “North Good, South Bad” because it was distorted, untruthful, not factually based and biased.
I tried to watch the WW2, it was HORRIBLE. That was not a “documentary”, again, it was someone filming their dissertation and point of view.
Ken Burns might be perceived as a premier filmaker in PBS circles, that’s about it. They deserve one another.
labwrs on December 19, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Odd. He gave a fantastic interview to Micheal Savage not long ago.
Ugly on December 19, 2007 at 12:18 AM
I started having my doubts about Burns with his Baseball documentary, which was filled errors and questionable points of view. I lost him with his Frank Lloyd Wright documentary. I was expecting an insightful look into the mind and art of the greatest architect of the 20th century, and all I got the scandals of his personal life etc.
Did he do one on Rock ‘n Roll. I seem to recall that and that Rock didn’t begin until Dylan went electric, or something nutty like that.
Mallard T. Drake on December 19, 2007 at 1:06 AM
I put up on YouTube recently the ending to his “Civil War” documentary. I find it very moving and the film footage of the veterans is extraordinary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X6qtwxedzg
Also, I think his “Baseball” documentary was his best.
SillyRyno on December 19, 2007 at 2:30 AM
I’m not sure if I can say he’s the greatest living documentarian, I think you can say he “was” one of the greatest documentarians ever. His latest WW2 effort was lackluster at best, total snoozefest mostly, with very little new and lesser known material in it. His “Civil War” was great, and so was “Baseball” but his schtick has become a pre-programed set of moves over stills and musical accompaniment/narration.
Jason Coleman on December 19, 2007 at 3:21 AM
Comments about Burn’s work sound like my own thoughts on any number of documentaries. Everything looks great for viewers with no, or only a basic understanding, of a subject.
If you have any knowledge of a subject you will find that part or all of the story is either wrong or distorted.
davod on December 19, 2007 at 5:22 AM
hmm, I’ve enjoyed NPR in the past. Granted it’s been a while, and we obviously don’t get the whole station over here.
I think I’ve seen “The War” advertised here, but yet to see it. Be interesting to see if it can top The World at War, but from what I’m hearing on this thread..
Reaps on December 19, 2007 at 5:41 AM
Ken now joins the ranks of other celebs(though in his case that’s nuanced)who think so much of themselves that they decide their endorsement means something. I keep wondering to whom it means something? Possibly Oprah’s audience but I doubt even that. Celebs would be well advised to get off their ego trains and keep their political preferences to themselves.
jeanie on December 19, 2007 at 10:28 AM
WHO CARES?
dalec on December 19, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Good point, davod – and the same rule can be applied to nearly all mainstream journalism.
Missy on December 19, 2007 at 12:13 PM
I’ve lived here in New Hampshire for over 35 years and no one cares about what Ken Burns thinks. The vast majority of people here couldn’t pick him out of a line-up if they had to, quite honestly. While his endorsement might mean something to the NPR/PBS/earth-toned corduroy crowd, it means absolutely nothing to the vast majority of undecided New Hampshire voters.
ConBlog_NH on December 19, 2007 at 12:19 PM
As Letterman once said, Burns gave us the hostory of the Civil War, the history of Baseball, and next…the history of the dorky haircut.
RobCon on December 19, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Comment pages: