ixtab9 Reviews

Christmas Carol (1986 TV Special)

For Galway fans only.

[7 February 2004]

The title of this item caused me to seek it out in 1992 since I compulsively track down every version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL that I can.

Unfortunately this is not an adaptation of the Dickens yuletide classic, but is simply a presentation of Galway playing flute versions of various Christmas Carols. It's enjoyable on that level, but I'm sure the title has resulted in a lot of confusion over the years.

Knowing that Galway was a musician I was hoping this might be scenes from A CHRISTMAS CAROL accompanied by his flute-playing, but it's not.

For anyone who could go for such a rendition of the CAROL I highly recommend the 1970 Anglia Television version which features a series of John Worsley's watercolor paintings of scenes from the Dickens story accompanied by narration from Paul Honeyman. It's available on video but is not on the IMDb at this time.

Shower of Stars (1954–1958)

Good as a curiousity piece, not for the quality.

[7 February 2004]

This version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL puts me in mind of the 1910 Edison Company rendition, which is to say it's main virtue is it's historical kitsch value. Even viewers like me who track down every version of the CAROL that they can will likely be disappointed in this production.

Sadly, Maxwell Anderson and Bernard Herrman turn in work that is not up to their usual high standards. In addition to that a distractingly loooooong fake nose on Frederic March and the manner in which the Christmas Yet To Come segment is hopelessly rushed mar the presentation.

The little extras help make this worth having , though. Viewers can get the feel of what live single-sponsor television broadcasts were like in the 1950's and will certainly laugh at the ads for new automobiles with three-figure selling prices. The Roger Wagner Singers belt out a few obscure Holiday songs from time-to-time, presumably to allow time for the next scene to be set up by the stagehands.

Though the story is presented in a pretty soulless "paint-by-numbers" way and lacks the usual emotional appeal it does contain a few interesting touches, like having the same actress who portrays Scrooge's lost love Belle play The Ghost of Christmas Past and having the same actor who portrays Scrooge's nephew Fred (Ray Middleton, who would go on to be in 1776)play The Ghost of Christmas Present.

Overall, this adaptation of the Dickens classic is best for CHRISTMAS CAROL enthusiasts who can't live without every version of the story they can lay their hands on.

Ramayan (1987–1988)

Worth checking out for anyone who loves mythology!

[12 December 2003]

This lengthy television adaptation of THE RAMAYANA is entertaining as long as the viewer has a working familiarity with Hindu mythology and is patient enough to enjoy the liesurely pace. I don't think it's likely to win over anyone who comes to the material cold or who comes to it expecting Spielberg-level special effects.

It's refreshing to see a visual realization of something other than Graeco-Roman mythology since, fascinating as that subject is, it's already gotten sizeable exposure in movies and on television. Rama and Sita come alive nicely in this production and unsurprisingly Hanuman manages to steal a few scenes. The style is faithful to the original epic so anyone who loves the story doesn't have to fear that it's been transformed into a slam-bang all-action blockbuster.

Ramayan (1987–1988)

Worth checking out for anyone who loves mythology!

[11 December 2003]

This lengthy television adaptation of THE RAMAYANA is entertaining as long as the viewer has a working familiarity with Hindu mythology and is patient enough to enjoy the liesurely pace. I don't think it's likely to win over anyone who comes to the material cold or who comes to it expecting Spielberg-level special effects.

It's refreshing to see a visual realization of something other than Graeco-Roman mythology since, fascinating as that subject is, it's already gotten pretty sizeable exposure in movies and on television. Rama and Sita come alive nicely in this production and unsurprisingly Hanuman manages to steal a few scenes. The style is faithful to the original epic so anyone who loves the story doesn't have to fear that it's been transformed into a slam-bang all-action blockbuster.

The Mark of Zorro (1920)

Masterful job by the man who embodied the word "swashbuckler"

[10/10 · 11 December 2003]

I consider Douglas Fairbanks Sr to be kind of the "Patron Saint" of the modern-day blockbuster spectaculars and I can picture him looking down and smiling every summer when the latest crop of these action epics are released. THE MARK OF ZORRO, THE THREE MUSKETEERS, ROBIN HOOD, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD, THE BLACK PIRATE and THE GAUCHO always strike me as the cinematic forerunners of the feel-good, two-fisted, special-effects-laden works that today's studios unleash for summer and Christmas. With DON Q,SON OF ZORRO and THE IRON MASK he could even be considered the "Patron Saint" of blockbuster sequels. To be sure those who have followed in his footsteps lack his mastery of the medium and debatably only RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK has the true "Fairbanks Aura" around it.

THE MARK OF ZORRO is a masterpiece for any filmmaking era and is a perfect film to use to introduce people to silent films. Always a shrewd showman Fairbanks pounced on the rights to Johnston McCulley's story THE CURSE OF CAPISTRANO, the tale that introduced "The Robin Hood of Old California" to the world. No matter what heights he'd go on to scale in his later films this one may represent Fairbanks' artistry in it's purest form. So much praise is heaped on the action scenes in this classic that viewers often overlook Doug's terrific job portraying both the foppish Don Diego and his athletic alter ego El Zorro. (When I first saw RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK the contrast between Harrison Ford's bookish, awkward mannerisms for Dr. Jones in the classroom and his agile, confident body language as the whip-wielding Indy reminded me of Fairbanks in THE MARK OF ZORRO.)

Younger viewers who might otherwise sneer at silent movies like this might be persuaded to give it a chance by pointing out to them that no less an action star than Jackie Chan often praises Douglas Fairbanks in the same breath with Buster Keaton as one of his influences.

THE MARK OF ZORRO all by itself earned Douglas Fairbanks his title as cinema's Swashbuckler-In-Chief.

Bah, Humbug!: The Story of Charles Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol' (1994 TV Movie)

A pleasant twist on the usual CHRISTMAS CAROL adaptations.

[5 December 2003]

If you're a CHRISTMAS CAROL fanatic like I am this makes a nice change of pace in your annual orgy of CAROL viewing. If you're just a casual fan or even a non-fan of the story this rendition is different enough and short enough that it should still prove enjoyable.

Martin Sheen and James Earl Jones read aloud from the familiar Dickens holiday classic with breaks here and there for background info on the author and his most popular holiday story. Sheen is adequate but sadly Jones makes the mistake of trying to read from a far-off teleprompter instead of from a hand-held book like his partner so he commits many embarrassing gaffes early on. It plays like he's a lame actor auditioning for the role of Scrooge and you keep expecting to hear the casting director bark out "Thank you! Next!" at any moment. After that awkward beginning Jones' performance stabilizes and his authoritative reading makes you wonder why Sheen was even selected to share the stage with him, especially since this first aired long before he was on THE WEST WING.

Anyone who enjoys the audio tapes of Patrick Stewart's excellent one-man stage-show of A CHRISTMAS CAROL(NOT the TNT movie version he starred in) should enjoy seeing what two other actors do with the rich material.

A Christmas Carol (1977 TV Movie)

Proof you don't need a big budget to do the story justice!

[5 December 2003]

I highly recommend this terrific U.K. television version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL and I wish it was better known than it is. Some PBS stations used to show it in the late 1970's and early 1980's but since then this version of the Dickens Christmas classic has shown up rarely even on cable.

Let me make it clear right off the bat that I'm one of those people who could watch an "All CHRISTMAS CAROL, All The Time" channel every December. That doesn't mean that I love each and every version of the story that comes along, it just means I love watching them all every single year. This adaptation of the story stands out from every other film and television version I've seen and only it's low budget and short running time put it behind the George C Scott classic.

The lighting may be 70's sitcom level and for some scenes this T.V. movie may use painted backgrounds but it wins the viewer over by demonstrating over and over again that it "gets" the point of the story. There's no attempt to psycho-analyze any of the characters, no silly attempt to contemporize the ghosts, no omission of Ignorance and Want and for once Belle doesn't overstay her welcome.

The secret of this version's appeal is that it uses nothing but Dickens' own story and best of all, nothing but Dickens' own dialogue. This may put the conversational exchanges over the heads of very young viewers but those who love the novelette will be ecstatic about this. Dickens' wordplay in the original story is wonderfully close to prose poetry and it's delightful to hear it presented in it's original form. Similarly, there are no fabrications of scenes not in the "real" story and no extraneous characters added. I enjoy seeing what some adaptors do with the story as much as anyone but it's refreshing to see a visual depiction of nothing but the content in the original classic.

Non-devotees of A CHRISTMAS CAROL would likely rate this lower than I do since I think the emotional bang of this telefilm makes up for it's budget limits. Even CAROL purists may be put off by the omission of some scenes from the original story but with the short running time that can't be remedied. Unless someone eventually does a film version of this story that's as slavish to it's source material as Erich Von Stroheim's GREED was to the novel McTEAGUE I don't think we'll see an adaptation that comes closer than this to realizing Dickens' original work.

As long as you don't expect outstanding production values I think the heartfelt performances and respect for the viewers' intelligence will put this version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL near the top of your list.

A Christmas Carol (1910)

Ideal for silent movie fans and CHRISTMAS CAROL completists!

[5 December 2003]

Obviously this version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL is largely noteworthy for it's historical value since it doesn't have time to delve very deeply into the Dickens story. This one-reel wonder is watchable as long as you have a fondness for silent movies like I do. I'm not so sure others will consider it worth a look.

Besides Marley there's only one other ghost, no Tiny Tim and comparatively few dialogue boards. What is left is largely a pantomime performance of the holiday classic but the familiarity of the story makes it easy to follow. What special effects there are are wonderful considering the time period and this will whet your appetite for other silent film versions of the tale.

Anyone who enjoys the Edison Company's equally short production of FRANKENSTEIN is sure to appreciate this film as well.

A Christmas Carol (I) (1982 TV Movie)

Not the best version of the story, but not the worst either.

[6/10 · 4 December 2003]

This telefilmfilm, which first aired on The Entertainment Channel in the early 1980's, is a film of The Guthrie Theater's stage adaptation of the Dickens Christmas classic. This provides no small element of novelty since there are only a handful of such stage versions available on video right now and this novelty is desperately needed to combat the old "Not another version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL!" syndrome.

I'm one of those people who could sit through an all-chimpanzee adaptation of this particular story but I'm aware that not everyone shares my enthusiasm for the tale. Since CAROL completists like myself will watch this version no matter what I'll try to keep the casual viewers in mind for this review.

THE GUTHRIE THEATER PRESENTS A CHRISTMAS CAROL is the film's official title and it was adapted for the stage by playwright Barbara Field. She shrewdly recognizes that Dickens' prose narrative provides many of the key emotional moments in the story and has Charles Dickens himself standing onstage serving as part narrator and part Greek Chorus throughout the play. Unfortunately, he's introduced in an irritating "wrap-around" bit that features Chuckie D(as I like to call Dickens)dealing with Christmas visitors who badger him into regaling them with his tale of Scrooge and Tiny Tim.

The clever split-level set is well-used and provides the afore-mentioned novelty that is so crucial to keeping casual viewers interested in the well-worn material. All the familiar elements of the story are present, tweaked here and there by the playwright with varying degrees of success. Scrooge seems intriguingly "haunted" by his various spritual ills even before a single ghost appears, one of the charity fund-raisers has a hearing impairment that's played for a few laughs and an unnecessary story involving a paperweight is provided for Scrooge's nephew Fred.

The scene with Marley's Ghost is a real show-stopper and manages to steal this version of the CAROL away from the Christmas Present portion which is usually my favorite sequence. During Christmas Past too little time is spent on Scrooge's sad youth and too much time is wasted on Scrooge's lost love Belle, but that's a mistake almost all of the stage and screen adaptations make. In the novel the Belle segment is heart-wrenching but brief, and is shown as just one more way Ebenezer is divorcing himself from humanity. I don't mind the play putting Belle at Fezziwig's party since it is after all, a staged version with limited room for sets. I'm less charitable toward the "disco" look provided for the actor who plays The Ghost Of Christmas Past. I'm also puzzled by the way this and some other versions of the CAROL pass up the chance to cast a woman as this ghost since Dickens himself described the spirit as being of indeterminate gender. Using an actress in the part would be a quick and easy way to counter one of the frequent criticisms of the story - the scarcity of prominent female roles - without seeming self-consciously "politically correct".

The scenes during Christmas Present fall uncharacteristically flat despite the charming performance of the actor playing the Ghost. This segment of the story seems drained of all of it's usual emotional impact and is fairly disappointing. Another shortcoming is the way the stageplay tries to flesh out the Cratchits but instead makes them seem like a sitcom family. I think this whole Act of the play could use a rewrite.

In it's favor, the play includes many scenes of Christmas Yet To Come that other less-patient versions of the story forego in their mad dash to the tombstone bearing Scrooge's name. (Surely no spoiler warning is needed for such a well-known scene.) Scrooge's Christmas morning conversion is appropriately joyful and his horseplay with Cratchit the next day is also well-handled. Sadly, just when we're all set for the signature "God bless us, everyone!" the characters from the opening wraparound segment return for a closing bit which takes it's sweet time finding a way to work Tiny Tim's sendoff into the dialogue. I'd be willing to bet many audience members at the live performances were impatiently glancing at their watches and jingling their car keys during this scene.

This is a fairly faithful adaptation of A CHRISTMAS CAROL that will likely entertain newcomers to the story without boring veterans of the countless other versions.

A Christmas Carol (1994 TV Movie)

Perfect for CHRISTMAS CAROL completists like me!

[6/10 · 4 December 2003]

I'm one of the many obsessive CHRISTMAS CAROL fans who track down every conceivable version of the story that they can. Right after Thanksgiving my unofficial annual Christmas-Carol-athon starts as I air every version of it that I own and debut any new ones I've managed to add to my collection. I emphasize this to point out that while I've enjoyed this ballet version ever since it debuted on A&E in the early 1990's I think I may be part of a very small audience.

Even other CHRISTMAS CAROL fanatics may not be able to stomach this version of the story, but I certainly have a good time watching it. I'm not a ballet fan but the familiarity of the Dickens story makes viewing all the prancin' and dancin' much more tolerable. The music is only so-so, but that's easily remedied by just turning the volume down and playing your own yuletide music in the background while watching the ballet dancers. The choreography for Fezziwig's party is outstanding and much of the Christmas Yet To Come portion features some appropriately eerie dance work. Purists may object to the unavoidably slender Ghost of Christmas Present in this version but I have no problem with it since other CAROL's take much greater liberties with the ghosts.

Ideal for hardcore CHRISTMAS CAROL devotees or maybe ballet fans who don't like the other film and television adaptations of the story.

A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia (1992 TV Movie)

A perfect companion piece to the David Lean epic!

[25 November 2003]

If you're like me, the film LAWRENCE OF ARABIA always leaves you hungering for more viewing material about T.E. Lawrence. Since documentaries sadly don't seem to appeal to all tastes this outstanding telefilm may satisfy your apetite. The movie deals with Lawrence's activities at the Paris Peace Conference following World War One and the cast is wonderful. Appropriate for material based on real events the film avoids hype and melodrama, keeping the viewer riveted with it's mature, intelligent approach. No matter what your politics it's intriguing to watch this movie and reflect on "what might have been" regarding relations between the Western Democracies and the nations being formed from the remains of the Ottoman Empire. The closing scene between Lawrence and Feisal nicely summarizes the sense of a monumental lost opportunity.

Program this film as a second feature the next time you watch LAWRENCE OF ARABIA for a wonderful marathon viewing experience.

Eight Men Out (1988)

Great movie! Seek out the book if you want more!

[25 November 2003]

I'm a non-baseball fan but even I love this well-made movie about the throwing of the 1919 World Series by the Chigago White Sox. Anyone who enjoyed John Sayles' film MATEWAN is sure to like this flick. It's difficult to understand why this film seems so unappreciated. It's got famous ball-players, a national scandal, organized crime, the mass media, courtroom drama, greed, hypocrisy and some wonderful performances by a capable cast. Throw in it's period detail and you've got the proverbial "slice of pure Americana."

As long as you detach yourself from our own time period in which athletes make obscene amounts of money it's easy to feel for the genuinely exploited White Sox players involved in the events. It's difficult not to laugh at the sense of national outrage that followed the revelation of the scandal considering how we've all gotten used to the fact that even our highest elected officials are hustlers and crooks who betray the public trust at every opportunity. It makes the throwing of a sports event seem very petty by comparison and adds to our sympathy for the players even as we disapprove of their actions. The naive way in which they figuratively bow their heads in shame and fade into oblivion stays with you. We all know that if this had happened in more recent decades the players would have all had their own "first-hand accounts" about the scandal on bookstands everywhere plus made-for-TV-movie deals, etc.

The main flaw of the film may be the fact that it assumes the viewer knows more than they probably do about the events and the players. Many first-time viewers remark on being a bit confused about who's doing what and when if they watch the film cold without having read up on the scandal beforehand. I agree with them because if I hadn't been pretty familiar with the details of the story going in I'm not sure I could have followed it all that clearly at times.

The film also fails to make clear the way that the "reserve clause" bound the players to Charles Commiskey's team indefinitely. The fact that the White Sox had won the 1917 World Series and yet it did nothing to improve the way Commiskey treated them should also have been worked in. Those are important details if we're to fully appreciate the players' frustration. A few moments of expository dialogue could have clarified all that for non-baseball historians. On the other hand, the film also neglects to cover the way some of the players involved in throwing the World Series were continuing to throw games during part of the 1920 regular season so maybe it all evens out.

While the flaws of EIGHT MEN OUT prevent it from being a truly great film it's still very well-made and deserves at least one viewing.

After the Warming (1989– )

I Sing You To Sleep, Af-terrrr The Warming!

[21 November 2003]

Fans of James Burke may remember his excellent television shows THE DAY THE UNIVERSE CHANGED plus CONNECTIONS and it's sequels. In those programs Burke would follow unlikely winds and turns in scientific and cultural development in a very thought-provoking way.

**********POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD**************

In AFTER THE WARMING Burke turned his eyes to the future and speculated on what would happen if the world ignored environmental problems. Presented as a mock documentary in the year 2050 AD this special depicted the fictional way in which the Earth was saved from the catastrophic effects of Global Warming.

After a look back at how the Industrial Revolution put the world on it's current fluoro-carbon spewing path followed by some imaginative prognosticating about droughts and flooding and the like in the near future Burke moves into territory that threatens to make this the REEFER MADNESS of environmental warning films. We're told that the Earth was saved from Global Warming by establishing a worldwide dictatorship called the Global Planning Authority. Burke doesn't describe it that way, of course, but "a horned man's a monster, Iago" and he even depicts this GPA launching military invasions of countries who don't want to adjust their environmental policies to please the new overlords of the Earth. While laughing at the idea of a perpetually-torn global community standing united and willing to spill blood over environmental issues I do give Burke credit for acknowledging that not everyone in the world would willingly goose-step to the GPA's dictums. In an eerie bit he even refers to "a series of conflicts in the Middle East".

Typical of people pushing a single-issue Utopia Burke ignores dealing with the fallout of some of his proposals, like the widespread unemployment that would surely result from eliminating all the fossil-fuel-driven industries he wants done away with. Also, since scientists often disagree about what would truly be the most environmentally safe way of dealing with Global Warming you can't help but wonder how technical disagreements of this type would be handled. Apparently by letting the political hacks of the Global Planning Authority be the ultimate arbiters. Not exactly the safest way of settling scientific debate.

AFTER THE WARMING also contains some entertaining "What If?" bits of scientific speculation, like eco-farming, deserts covered with solar panels, homes that are super-efficient in their use of energy and genetically engineered vegetables like the "cactus potatoes" bred to withstand the higher temperatures of the future. Burke might have been on firmer ground emphasizing this aspect of the show rather than raising the ugly specter of global tyranny crushing all opposition, then glossing over it by ignoring the implications.

This two-part special is thought-provoking and entertaining at times, but in the end pretty laughable despite it's noble aims.

Deep Spikes (1985)

Deep Something, that's for sure!

[21 November 2003]

I first saw this film with some friends. All of us were into seeking out the weirdest movies we could find and had exhausted the slim pickin's that the early 1980's held in terms of Cult Movies on video release. One thing none of us had ever seen was a bona-fide, genuine, "Leather Subculture" FemDom movie. We bought DEEP SPIKES for our next party expecting something that would probably blow the ILSA movies away since it presumably was made outside of the usual filmworld boundaries. Also, call me a male chauvinist if you will, but I liked the fact that men were obviously the victims in DEEP SPIKES since I hate the violence against women depicted in the ILSA movies.

Luckily we previewed the film before inflicting it on our guests at that party. DEEP SPIKES is below par even for alleged "porn" and had production values inferior to the lousiest public access cable show. What we had hoped would be a daring jaunt to the Video Netherworld wound up instead as a slow stroll through Tedium Television. On top of which the cast members, male and female alike, are decidedly unglamourous. I don't say that to be cruel, I say it because it's relevant to this film's attempt at being "erotic fantasy". With it's many failings it's difficult to see how this film could, shall we say, stimulate someone.

*******POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD********

An actor listed in the credits as "John Foote" (Gee, do you think that's his real name?) stops to help a blonde woman experiencing car trouble. And believe me, the words "blonde woman experiencing car trouble" are far more titillating than anything in this movie. This woman, called "Mistress Destiny" in the credits, accepts his offer of help, then drives him to her apartment. Once there she drugs him and binds him to the wall for "torture" scenes which are hilarious since she's obviously barely brushing him with her whip.

While that's going on we join an elderly woman called "Baroness Silver Charles" and her slave David, the only cast member who resembles what you'd expect a porn star to look like. Flashbacks reveal that David was enslaved by the Baroness in an earlier film called BENEATH HER SPIKES but somehow I don't think my friends and I were missing any important plot elements by having failed to see that previous installment. David seems to spend all his time kissing and licking the Baroness' feet and sucking her high heels with periodic time-outs for half-hearted spankings.

Meanwhile, back with Mistress Destiny her hostess, "Duchess Von Stern", returns home and expresses her admiration for Destiny's torture technique on "John Foote". The Duchess decides to take John along with her when she visits Baroness Silver Charles that night. With all the bogus titles flying around in this film I think the men should get in on it too, so from now on I'll call David "Commodore David" and John Foote "The Footemeister General"

The gathering at the Baroness' place is the "big finish" to the film and is therefore slightly less boring than the rest of the movie. First she and the Duchess have Commodore David lie down while they grind their "Deep Spikes" into various soft portions of his anatomy. Then while the Duchess continues abusing the Commodore, the Baroness goes into "the next room"(as if this film had two sets)to use her high heels on The Footemeister General. After awhile, The Footemeister General winds up in a bedroom with the Duchess where, in a bold break from all the previous foot-kissing in the movie, he kisses her feet some more. Commodore David winds up being tortured by Mistress Destiny who takes her top off, which is really the only thing in the movie that couldn't have been shown in a PG rated film.

After the film was over the tape had trailers for BENEATH HER SPIKES and for the next film in the series - DEEPER SPIKES, which seemed like more of the same, except that Mistress Destiny had a really short haircut.

To be fair to this film, I have no idea if all "FemDom" movies are this tame and boring but this one should definitely be avoided, especially in a day and age where you can find kinkier material on just about any of those syndicated afternoon freak shows masquerading as talk shows.

The Civil War (1990)

Many have imitated it, noone has come close!

[20 November 2003]

Though THE CIVIL WAR was far from Ken Burns' first documentary, it was the one that earned him his first nationwide exposure. I loved it when it debuted and was one of the nerds taping every episode even though I knew I was going to buy the whole series the minute it was available on video.

Ironically, in spite of all the praise heaped on THE CIVIL WAR the greatest example of how powerful this documentary is may well be the passionate hostility it generated from people with diametrically opposed views. Conservative types found it too politically correct, the Political Correctness Police complained that it wasn't politically correct enough. Some people felt it glorified war, others felt it was a wimpy bleeding-heart indictment of war. Anachronistic "Confederate-Americans" felt it was a hatchet-job on their beloved "Dixie", while still others felt it was far too generous toward the Southern States and depicted them as if they were the winners. I don't think I'm going too far when I say that such "all things to all people" interpretations are often a sign of...art.

I feel Ken Burns genuinely transformed documentaries from dry, stodgy, yawn-inducing sleeping pills into an art form. All his work before and since is worth viewing (well, okay , maybe BASEBALL takes itself way too seriously) but this was his breakthrough work. Bookstores were suddenly overflowing with Civil War books, music from the series was being played on the radio and many people who previously never gave the proverbial two hoots about the Civil War were suddenly passionate about the subject and wanted to know more.

I definitely was one of the "two-hooters" before viewing this documentary since I used to concentrate solely on the Revolutionary War. The manner in which THE CIVIL WAR ignited enthusiasm is what often gets overlooked by the critics. No single documentary no matter how long could possibly hope to cover every critic's own pet angle on the subject but the series made countless people curious about the conflict in a way the academic world had always failed to.

Educators could stand to learn from the phenomenon this documentary unleashed rather than exhibit the petty jealousy they displayed toward it. Rather than try brow-beating the audience into conforming to one particular view of the conflict the series provided exposure to multiple takes on it. Viewers couldn't help but feel a surge of feeling at the masterful mingling of narration with extended quotes from newspapers and personal diaries of the period. Then Historian Barbara Fields would come along with the type of snide, condescending, finger-wagging remarks that reminded the audience why most people hate hearing about history.

Ken Burns' influence has so dramatically changed the form of documentaries it can't help but make you laugh at the memory of those dry, single-narrator documentaries of the past.