The West

This documentary directed by Steven Ives (not Ken Burns, as several of the reviews in this thread inaccurately state) is a sweeping epic that showcases the salient moments in the settlement of the American West. Using historical documents, academic narratives, scenes of stunning natural beauty, and original photos and documents, "The West" is a gripping and historically accurate overview of this great (and, at times, terrible) period in American history.

The reviews that complain that this series is somehow anti-American suffer from two flaws. The first is selection bias. Parts of "The West" feature cruelty and brutality, usually at the hands of white settlers. But to focus on this as the only distinguishing feature of the film ignores the numerous instances in which white people--e.g., Sam Houston, Brigham Young, Joseph Meek, just to take a few--are portrayed quite deservingly as heroes. Nor are all Native Americans portrayed in a positive light; the film also makes the point that the Lakota Sioux's claims to the Black Hills territory as their ancestral lands are somewhat ironic because the Lakota conquered the Kiowa and other tribes, driving them out of that area in conquests very similar to the Americans' accession of the West.

The second error is simple oversensitivity. The history of the West is both a great and terrible story. It's great because it epitomizes the expansive American spirit that binds us together as a nation. It's terrible because in acquiring the West, we (Americans, that is) more or less decimated an entire people. I think those who refer to this process as genocidal are wrong, but not by much. The history of the West is thus not a story of good or evil, but a story of both, and the film "The West" shows this dialectic unflinchingly. If you have too delicate a constitution to accept that brutality and suffering are the flip side of manifest destiny's glory, you should not watch this documentary. "The West" does not seek to spare anyone's feelings, but rather only to tell the truth about this period in all its great and awful reality.

The history of 'The West', the area of the United States west of the Missouri River, from the 16th century to the early 1900s.

Interesting documentary series. Well-researched, with some great detail. Doesn't cover just bigger-picture history but also some of the micro stuff, the lives of everyday people involved.

While the facts are interesting, this negated to some extent by the editorial bias. Instead of just giving the history, the writers decided to centre the series on the native Americans. This means that the common theme is that the white/US expansion into the west is bad and that whites are evil. You can sense the delight in Peter Coyote's voice as he details Custer's Last Stand.

Covering the native American perspective was necessary but it didn't have to be the only perspective or a good vs bad, us vs them sort of thing. This focus extends into everything, including the intro theme, the music of which became very irritating, very quickly, yet got played ad nauseam in the series.

In addition, the one thing most people would have looked for in this series was stories of famous gunslingers and outlaws from the late-1800s. There's a brief mention of people like Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday, but that's it. This is consistent with a comment towards the end of the series that the actual West wasn't as glamourous or action-packed as Hollywood makes it out to be. This is true, but they could still have covered some of that history.

Overall, worth watching for a detailed history of the West. Just don't expect stories of gunslingers or a balanced approach to history.

I had looked forward to the series as coming from a master of the documentary form. After all, Burns set in motion several documentary devices that have been widely copied since, such as first-person voice-over narration and having the narrator sign off each spoken part with his or her name. The Civil War series was truly an achievement.

This thing, however--

It amounts to a chapters-long indictment of Europeans that verges on racism. It emerges after a while that the only good whites are dead whites. It's true that there was much brutality in white settlement of the west, and that horrible crimes were committed, usually unthinkingly, and many of them by whites. But is there really nothing more to the story than white-folks-bad/red-folks good? With a little effort, Ken Burns might have found, oh, I don't know, at least one good white person. Or, rather, one good white person who wasn't immediately tarred and feathered by his redneck fellows.

It's as if you were to tell the story of World War II and focus on nothing but the fact that the American armed forces were rigidly segregated at the time. Oh, wait, that one's probably Ken Burns' next.

In response to the ludicrous comments of the aforegoing jingoistic 'type': The writers of The West must have had more than a few facets of their mammoth piece right in order to elicit such a typically moronic right-wing-styled response in its appeal to nationalistic myth, grand-narrative delusion and brazen stereotype positing. Not to mention - the ironic circumstance of contending that 'we' as the Caucasiatic race are being slighted in some way, in order to showcase the romanticised moanings of other races. The series does no such thing... in fact it habitually (and necessarily) DOES turn about much of the essential Ameri-myths of Frontier and Manifest Destiny (and sundry others), which have been/are so central to your much lauded and generalised "natioanl consciousness". The series, in the main, does NOT disparage these! - nor is there essentially any need to - since they're not altogether bad, of course.

So, once you're finished waving your flag about, and - somewhat ironically - prattling on about the reductive "black and white", perhaps consider that an expansive narrative like The West MUST contain motifs and themes... it cannot present a comprehensive or 'complete' history (there is no such thing)... and is perfectly entitled to present perspectives that don't accord with someone-or-other's ideal of a 'balanced' account. 'Balance' is NO objective reality, and shouldn't be thought of as 'existing' as a universal truth awaiting insertion into subjectively-conceived narratives - not even quality history docos such as The West. As far as I could ascertain, The West does NOT prefigure or predetermine to depict white settlement as inherently disastrous in any event. It is celebrated as much or as far its nasty consequences are elucidated. And, the perspectives of native peoples OUGHT factor decisively anyway - it is no narrative flaw of The West to present this perspective... especially when facts abound to corroborate.

Also, to the aforementioned 'patriot' who seems fond of collectivising white America concerning all that overstated 'swell'stuff like "fighting communism" and "winning two World Wars" ... you're okay with maintaining the 'we' for all the OTHER stuff too, right?

The West does present narrative, production and continuity issues for me also, but I'm loathe to be allied to a K.P. such as thee.

Unique, amazing, massive project thoroughly documenting the expansion of the United States into the vast territories of the American WEST. Brutally honest, sympathetic insight into the fall of the many Native American peoples... some of the material is painful, sometimes bleak, but an absolute MUST SEE for any feeling person with even a passing interest in the history of America. Outstanding photography and the classic Ken Burns look & feel (executive & senior producer), but with director Stephen Ives' own insightful point-of-view. This series ranks right along side Burns' "Civil War" in scope and depth, IMHO. See it anyway you can, then demand the set on DVD! (DVD not available at this writing).