I think I'm Glad I threw my TV away   ctb
-----Original Message-----
From: Met History <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 1:25 PM
Subject: Cross-posted review of Ric Burns' "New York"


>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?
>