Aging Disgracefully

By contrast, the first episode of The War leans far too heavily in the direction of people's history. It seemed to offer a bunch of essentially disconnected personal stories, interesting in and of themselves but with little connection to the larger sweep of history or our own lives. And, frankly, this kind of thing has already been done at least as effectively, for instance in the episode of HBO's Band of Brothers where we heard from the actual paratroopers themselves. We certainly get very little sense of the causes of the war (even in the most cursory way), the issues at stake or the world the various combatants sought to build. We were continuously reminded that Nazism and Imperial Japanese blood lust were bad, but learned little about what they represented and thus, for instance, the really definitive elements of the alternative we offered the world. He should have found his Shelby Foote for this one.

Second, while The Civil War deftly traced the personal journey of people like Elisha Hunt Rhodes and Sam Watkins through the war, in the process lending some kind of structure and continuity to the personal history side of things, it is already obvious that Burns' "four cities" construct in The War is sort of clunky and constricting. It simply pushes the idea of structure to the point where it becomes an unwieldy yoke. There will be too many continuous narrative streams for a clear, uncluttered presentation. Finally, the individuals interviewed from each city are not sufficiently connected to make the construct worthwhile. Their stories aren't really interwoven. Is the geographical coincidence of two people being from Waterbury enough to hold this device together?

Third, where the music of The Civil War was pitch perfect and delivered maximum emotional impact, I found that of The War to be sort of sterile and unmoving. I can't quite put my foot on it, but it just did not seem to hit (what I think was) the desired mood at every moment. It lacks a certain haunting quality that this template for a documentary requires.

Fourth, The Civil War told the story from both sides of the conflict. I suspect that in this Burns, the consummate sly cheerleader for the American experience, would argue privately that both sides of the Civil War were American. Who cares what former SS Stormtroopers or Japanese kamikazes think? While this may seem reasonable at first glance, the problem is that ignoring them leaves a great deal on the table in terms of what the war meant. Like it or not, men sometimes fight with all of their heart for the worst causes. Our Japanese and German opponents put up the most stunning kind of resistance. Understanding why is important, if for no other reason than the fact that it impacted us. In a larger sense, however, the over-arching point of the US war effort was the idea that, to channel Tennyson, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. We fought this war to transform their world as much as our own. Understanding what that meant, and the legacy of that effort for those at the business end of it, is crucial to wrapping ourselves around the ultimate legacy of that war, and how it should inform our values and choices today. If the war was just about us, then it probably wasn't worth fighting, much less remembering.

To be sure, The War is a cut above (far above) the typical offering in the intellectual desert of contemporary television, and it is concerned with an important topic. While it falls short of a fairly tough mark, it is still decent and interesting. For that reason alone I'll probably see it through to the end. But I already doubt I'll get the DVD or remember any of the people in it the way that Elisha Hunt Rhodes or Sam Watkins remain fresh in my mind, fifteen years after The Civil War.