The War

I am a 1958 Baby Boomer. My dad was a medic with the 97th. Now I know why he didn't really talk about the war much. He mostly talked about the friends he had made, and the sites that he had seen. After viewing some of the grizzly images in "The War", I can only imagine the horror he must have endured caring for the wounded and dead. My dad passed away in 1999, but I found myself often while watching "The War" wishing that he were there sitting next to me to answer many of the questions that this documentary brought to mind. Mostly I wanted to give him a big hug. I feel that I know and understand Dad so much better now. Thanks Dad and thanks Ken Burns.

I spent the last week reading and then watching this remarkable series, i.e., reading a chapter in Geoffrey C. Ward's 400+ page book and then watching the corresponding episode of the documentary film. While the script of the films, also by Ward, reproduces much of what is in the book, often verbatim though not necessarily in the same order, there is also much that had to be left out to limit this massive undertaking to seven approximately 2-hour film episodes.

Reading the book is already a very moving and informative experience. It is very well and powerfully written. But watching the seven installments of the movie is yet more powerful, indeed often overwhelming. (I could not handle more than one episode a day.) It is one thing to read the recollections of the witnesses, almost all of whom are master story tellers. It is that much more powerful to hear their voices and see their faces as they recount them. Much interesting detail is lost in the narrative in going from the book to the movie, so the movie is less informative than the book. But in terms of conveying the emotional impact the war had on both those who fought in it and those who lived through it here in the States, which in the end is one of Burns' goals, the movie is far more successful than the already very successful book.

Some previous reviewers get lost in irrelevant sidetracks. Burns makes it very clear from the start that he cannot tell the whole story of the War, so he is limiting himself to how it affected people in four mid- to small-sized American towns. (He cheats a little on this with witnesses like Glenn Frazier, who wasn't from Mobile, and Sascha Werzheimer, who was from Sacramento but spent the War in the Philippines, but I'm not going to fault him on that.) Complaining that this series does not cover the war in Yougoslavia or other places is therefore irrelevant; no one could cover all of the war in 15 hours of documentary, and Burns tells us from the very beginning what limits he is imposing on his presentation. If you want something else, this is not the place to look for it.

Others complained about the music. I truly cannot understand why. Burns' team makes masterful use of songs popular during the War, and of a deeply moving score by Winton Marsalis that makes already powerful visual and vocal footage that much more devastating. I wouldn't listen to the sound track by itself, but putting it beneath the rest of what is going on makes it that much more devastating.

It is clear that Burns and Ward want to make several points, none of which I see as particularly left- or right-wing. They show that some of the American generals in the war had overbearing egos (MacArthur in particular) and some were simply incompetent. They show that war brings out the worst in some human beings, whatever the nationality, reducing them to something subhuman, such as the American GI who extracts teeth from an enemy corpse to get the gold fillings or the Japanese soldiers who emasculate dead GIs. (We actually see brief film footage of what appears to be GIs robbing Japanese soldiers' corpses of their possessions.) But we also hear of incredible courage and stamina, often told by men whose courage and endurance is equaled only by their humility.

As several of the veterans say, you cannot understand what it was like to live through the worst of the war unless you were there. This movie doesn't challenge that assertion. It does, however, do a remarkable job of giving us some idea not just of the facts of the matter, but of what the war did emotionally to those who lived through it, on the fields of battle and here at home.

On the last page of the book's text, one of the witnesses, Quentin Aanenson, says that "the dynamics of war are so absolutely intense, the drama of war is so absolutely emotionally spellbinding, that it's hard for you to go on with a normal life without feeling something is missing." It is that absolute intensity that this movie series does an often overwhelmingly good job of conveying.

Ken Burns is one of the most prolific filmmakers of our time, and his body of work encompasses a wide array of subjects such as baseball, the prohibition era, national parks, cancer research, and other things. Probably the most critically acclaimed things he makes though are the ones related to war. The documentary he produced on the vietnam war for example is without a doubt one of the most incredible and well put together things ever broadcast, and if you didn't already see it, I'd advise you to do so. Long before he made that, Burns made another documentary on war that also received universal approval, that being on the civil war. In between these two, he created a short tv series on the second world war, but unlike the other two that got an amazing reception from basically everyone, the world war II series is seen as somewhat of a mixed bag, at least by me. Don't get me wrong, it's still very well made and has moments in it that will make you laugh, make you sad, make you scared, etc. And only the very best shows can make the viewer feel all these emotions within only one episode, but my problems with the series arise when you notice that this isn't really an overview of the subject at hand. The civil war series and the vietnam series are both amazing because they cover in impeccable detail the causes of each war, who was fighting who, what were they fighting about, what long term effects the conflict had, and other things. They also include interviews and firsthand accounts from people that were there. The War has all this, but it's not a direct overview of what world war II actually was, so if you're looking for a show that covers the whole thing from start to finish, then you better look elsewhere. The series does not really go into why ww2 started or how, but rather focuses on just the US side of things. It's the story of ww2 from the American perspective. It interviews various people from 5 different US towns and how their citizens experienced the war. It's not an all-encompassing recap of what the war was about. Despite this, I still enjoyed the series, and it has many incredible stories in it that the people tell, but the fact that it's not an overview of the whole war kind of annoys me. Still, the war footage is very engaging, and Keith David's narrating is without a doubt one of the best things about this series (cultured people will recognize his voice as the arbiter from halo 2 and 3). Again, it's not bad by any means. Just not what I was expecting from Ken. I watched the vietnam war first, and that one was so ridiculously good that everything else looks disappointing in comparison. The War is great, but not a worthy competitor to the masterpiece that was vietnam.

I still think that the gold standard of WW II documentaries is the 1970's World at War series. Laurence Oliver's ominous Macbeth style of narration set the tone and the 26 episode series covered WW II really well. Critics point out that it showed the war from more of a British point of view. I suppose the fact that Britain and it's dominions were fighting against the Germans and the Japanese for longer than any of the other allies in the Far East, North Africa, the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, Scandinavia and continental Europe is perhaps understandable. If casualties alone was the standard used to measure sacrifice or relevance then the USSR could lay claim to that . Over 15 % of it's population in some form of another perished in the eastern front amounting to millions in a war of annihilation against the Germans. Taking it on it's own I don't think there is a conflict in human history that can match the brutality and barbarism that took millions of lives in such a short space of time. They are all important topics in the context of WW II and they have over the years been excellently covered and narrated by American as well as British production companies. One aspect that has not been really been examined thoroughly is the WW II purely from an American point of view.

Ken Burns probably needed to remind a new generation of Americans whose understanding of war is limited to computer games and watching smart bombs and predator drones on TV or on you-tube bombarding specs on the ground from a command center in Florida. In previous wars, Americans endured greater sacrifices. A lot of boots on the ground was the order of the day and American troops encountered huge numbers of well armed and fanatical opponents. Interestingly Burns seemed to focus on four states of the USA, Connecticut, Alabama, Wisconsin and California. I don't know why he picked these these in particular, but probably because it gave a good geographical balance of how it affected the lives of the families and the servicemen in the USA.

There is no doubt that mainland USA protected by the vast Atlantic and Pacific oceans had an easier time in WW II than the other allies. The US was never really under a serious threat of either large air raids or invasion. Yes crude attacks were attempted both by the Germans and Japanese but only for propaganda purposes. If it was an accident of geography (and the isolation explains the USA's late entry into the war) lucky for the USA and lucky for the world too! Remember it was a world war and the arsenal of democracy as it was known could offer vital military equipment and manpower for the war effort.

From a standing start,(although lend lease to Britain and armament production had been steadily rising since 1940) the USA really got it's industry going on a total war footing. Japan and Germany had a ten year head start in war capacity and training. By 1942 Americans were fighting in North Africa, by 1943 Italy, 1944 France ,as well as doing a bit of island hopping in the pacific to boot and by 1945 it was all over. In fact Americas limitless natural resources, raw materials, manpower (and woman power) and huge industrial potential uninterrupted from air raids were vital. Not only was it important for victory but also in shaping the post-war world, i.e. the Marshall plan. Americas efforts in the aftermath of the war with European and Japanese reconstruction should not be underestimated.

The American military with their self confidence, bold ideas, optimism and big band music and might have irritated and annoyed the other allies. In Britain they were over sexed, over paid and over there. However, amusing that might sound it doesn't really go anywhere in telling the whole story. On the cover of this DVD set there is a photograph of a tired and gaunt looking American GI, a far cry from the beaming soldier fresh off the boat in the snazzy uniform out on the town. He could have been from any where in the USA perhaps Connecticut or Wisconsin, but his haunted face tells the story. He was probably in his early 20's wanted to go college or get married, join his fathers business, work on the farm or be a lawyer, perhaps he wanted to be a baseball player. Yet his life was turned upside down, conscripted into the service and after boot camp was shipped off thousands of miles from where he grew up to places he had never heard of!

American blood was spilled as far and wide as Iwo Jima, North Africa, Normandy, Bastogne and Guadalcanal, Anzio, Remargen and Midway, just to name a few, ten of thousands of Americans died on land in the air and at sea. American forces were involved in some of the most vicious fighting of the second world war. Victory over Hitler nor Japan could have been achieved without US participation, but the USA couldn't have done it all alone too, allies were vital too.

It gives an interesting account of the war from how it impacted the lives of Americans and how they saw it from their point of view. I got the impression from Burns that the US fought harder in the pacific, it was more personal, probably because of pearl harbor but moreover the Japanese were really easy to hate, they were exceptionally cruel to their captives. Well narrated in an easy going style by Keith David. Must movies for Americans to watch after this is THE VICTORS 1963 and finally the very impressive BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES 1949.

"Dear God, we need your help real bad. Don't send anyone else but yourself, neither. Not even Jesus. 'Cause this is no place for kids."

I'm half way through the series and am absorbing it like a sponge. Fantastic story tellers, especially that pilot, Quentin Annensen (sp?). Oscar-winning actors couldn't have done it any better, telling chilling stories that make me realize how lucky I am, as a young man, to not have to experience such things. (...And I thought I had drama in my life.)

My Grandfather survived the war on various submarines, so I've been a bit disappointed there's been no mention, so far, of sub warfare. But as the series describes, "there were millions of people involved and millions of stories." I'm not too upset.

To the filmmakers, terrific job. To the vets, I'll always remember you.