Cross-posted (but not written) by Christopher Gray to BP List from NYHIST-L
listserv.  (John Tierney fans: save for your scrapbook.)

Date:   12/02/1999 10:34:28 AM Eastern Standard Time
From:   [log in to unmask] (Peter Eisenstadt)
Reply-to:   [log in to unmask] (A LISTSERV list for discussions
pertaining to New York State history.)

Dear List:

Ric Burn's epic PBS series, "New York: A Documentary Film" has come and gone.
 While it was being shown, I heard many comments about the program.
Professional historians of  my acquaintance, with few exceptions, didn't much
care for it,  while my non-historian friends generally were much more
enthusiastic.  For myself, I found this long-awaited series rather
disappointing.  The level of accuracy was often quite poor. The treatment of
the Dutch consisted for the most part  of  a skein of the half-truths and
legends, and "New York" opened with the eminent colonial historian Brendan
Gill saying something like the Dutch were only here for the money, and that's
the way its always been in this town, commencing on a glib and boosterish
tone the series never lost. Among the many errors let me just mention two
that for personal reasons annoyed me the most, from among a  bounty of
historical inaccuracies: the use of  the notorious and thoroughly discredited
NYHS portrait of Lord Cornbury, and the perpetuation of  the myth that the
New York Stock Exchange was founded beneath a buttonwood tree in 1792.

But leave us not to pick nits. A more important issue is how well Ric Burns
narrated the story of  the city through his choice of episodes and unfolding
of  grand themes. There were a number of  segments of  the series I rather
liked, such as  the treatment of the draft riot, and the Triangle Shirtwaist
fire.  (Contrary to the vile column in the New York Times by John Tierney,
who in defending the occupational safety practices of  garment sweatshops
c.1910, managed to attack one of  the things "New York" almost certainly got
right.)   On the other hand, many major aspects of  the city's history were
either missing or treated scantily. On the whole I felt the series tended to
belabor the obvious, and often was tiresomely celebratory, sprinkling
superlatives on  everything it discussed;  the biggest, the largest, the
first, or the newest. (Even the draft riot was a cause for civic pride; only
really important cities have the honor of  hosting really important acts of
mob viole!
nce, one talking head opined.)  For  all  the complaints in recent years
about the supposed political correctness of PSB documentaries, as in John
Tierney's aforementioned screed,  it seemed to me that "New York"  was rather
traditional in its choice of  topics--heavy on the architecture, rather light
on women, social conflict and the pet themes of  the new social history.
Ultimately the main theme of  "New York" was the possibility of  triumph over
adversity. A friend of  mine commented that the series, which time and again
showed New York City remaking itself, rising from the ashes of  past
disasters to ever greater  glory, spoke to a personal mythology of  endless
personal refashioning that is the dominant  quasi-religion of  our time.
Perhaps this is why the series resonated so strongly with the average viewers.

That's my two cents.  I hope I don't sound too angry.  It's not easy pulling
one of  these mega-series off, and tough choices abound at every turn,
especially in the choice of  material. Still, as I said above, my dominant
reaction was one of disappointment. I would be interested in hearing other
responses to "New York."  What people liked about and didn't like about it,
and what you would have done differently? Why was the show so popular, and
what does that tell us about the gap between serious scholarship and
middlebrow documentaries?   What purpose does a series such as "New York
serve? And what lessons do the achievements and shortcomings of   "New York"
hold for  those who write upon or teach the history of  New York City and New
York State?