Categories
Film/TV TV Features

Ken Burns Takes On Muhammad Ali

A documentary is always judged first by its subject. People will love a slapdash doc about a subject they’re interested in more than a skillfully put together documentary about a boring or obscure subject. Judging from the sheer number of documentaries made about him in the last 50 years or so, no one is more interesting than Muhammad Ali. 

I’m not a sports fan, but one of my all time favorite documentaries is When We Were Kings, the 1996 Best Documentary Oscar winner about the 1974 fight between Ali and George Foreman in Kinshasa, in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo. But that’s the tip of the Ali iceberg. Just last year, documenter Antoine Fuqua dropped What’s My Name? Muhammad Ali

Now, Ken Burns, a contender to the title of The Greatest when it comes to documentaries (television, anyway) takes his swing with a four-part, eight-hour PBS miniseries called simply Muhammad Ali. It is predictably Burnsian, with all of the strengths that implies, but fewer of the weaknesses. 

Burns’ strengths are access, thoroughness, and clarity. The man literally has his own nonprofit foundation dedicated solely to financing his docs, so money to license archival footage is not an issue. After burnishing his reputation for decades as the filmmaker of record for American history, no one is going to say no to talking to him on camera. And Burns’ completely transparent filmmaking, a descendant of the high BBC style seen in epic documents like The World at War, only looks easy because it’s designed to be digestible. It is in fact extraordinarily difficult to pull off, but time and again, Burns does it with low-key panache. 

His signature move of isolating details on still photos and then slowly pulling out to reveal the entire image is deployed to great effect — the key is to find the most interesting face in the picture, and start there. Nine times out of 10, that’s Ali. Inspired by wrester Gorgeous George, he bragged about how beautiful he was, and he was right. Young Ali was startlingly good looking, in better shape than just about anyone on the planet, and dripping with charisma. During his gold medal-winning stint at the 1960 Olympics, a journalist described him as “the Mayor of Olympic Village.” 

Coverage just doesn’t get more thorough than devoting eight hours of prime time television to your subject. Ali was one of the most photographed and filmed people in history, so there’s plenty of material to work with. One of Burns’ best decisions is to let the fights play out much longer than a two-hour doc would allow. From the first time he fought as a teenager, Ali said he would become the greatest boxer of all time, and the proof is in this fight footage. Especially during the second episode, (also entitled “What’s My Name?”) Ali looks superhuman in the ring. Burns sets up the easy cynicism of the boxing press and announcers, only to knock it down when he lets you hear the awe slip into their voices while they watch Ali methodically take apart opponents who were supposed to beat him. 

The length allows Burns to avoid pure hagiography by diving deep into subjects like Ali’s involvement with the Nation of Islam. In what was the most shocking moment of the entire doc for me, personally, Ali praises segregationist governor George Wallace, and says he thinks Black people and white people shouldn’t mix. Burns presents the moment in an extended clip, so there’s no doubt that the director wasn’t taking his subject out of context. Ali meant what he said at that moment, but Burns also shows Ali’s moral evolution and growth as the barely educated Louisville kid sees more of the world and his understanding deepens. 

His rhetorical style of trash talking would go on to inspire everyone from Michael Jordan to Donald Trump — which means he was also responsible for bringing a lot of negativity into the world, as people without his smarts and talent tried to emulate him. Trolls today wish they had Ali’s insight into what will get a rise out of his opponents. 

Burns’ weakness is that he’s long-winded to the point of being boring. But here he is saved by his endlessly fascinating subject. Ali was many things, but he was never boring. And that makes Muhammad Ali essential viewing. 

Categories
Film/TV Film/TV/Etc. Blog

The Vietnam War

If you make documentaries in the 21st century, Ken Burns is inescapable. You either have to accept his influence and learn his lessons, or reject it and try to do something different. The advantage of the latter is, fail or succeed, you at least won’t be boring. The advantage of the former is, making a piece that works.
Burns greatest filmmaking skill is achieving a steady flow of information that’s not too fast, and not too slow. His documentary series are timed for maximum absorption. He wants to give your brain time to wallow around in the details, while still learning the important lessons. That might sound easy, but in practice, it is insanely difficult. Sustaining interest over 18 hours of television is an Olympian feat.

Burns has not always succeeded. For his 2009 PBS series National Parks: America’s Best Idea, he slowed it way down, presumably to give those stunning HD vistas a little time to breathe. For one episode, my wife fell asleep during the opening credits. At least it was soothing.

The Vietnam War, Burns’ newest venture, more resembles his 2011 series Prohibition, which clocked in at a brisk 5 and a half hours. The presence of co-director Lynn Novick seems to be good for the finished product.
Watching our country’s best and brightest stumble into protracted disaster seems quite relevant in 2017. It wasn’t like there wasn’t a historical precedent. From Afghanistan to, well, Afghanistan again, low key meddling at the edges of empire has a tendency to spiral out of control. The entire story of America’s Southeast Asian misadventure was told already in the French colonial involvement in Vietnam. The American experience just lasted longer, because we had more money and bodies to spend.

There were multiple people who saw it coming and tried to warn against it, beginning with the very first OSS detachment in the country after the end of the Japanese invasion. But it was always the pursuit of short term political gain that keeps the war going. Just kick the can a little further down the road, and maybe things will get better.

The most interesting thing Burns has achieved so far is fleshing out Ho Chi Minh as a character rather than the yellow peril figure he had been portrayed as in the United States for so long. Ho was a nationalist at heart, and one of those rare revolutionaries who was such a skilled retail politician that he made the successful transition into governing. His first choice to achieve independence for his country was to go to the Americans. When we sided with his country’s colonial masters, he did the logical thing and went to the Chinese and the Russians. One of the most stunning moments of the first two episodes is when an American Green Beret commander casually says, yeah, we should have been on Ho’s side, because we started out as a colony and achieved greatness as an independent nation, and that’s what the Vietnamese wanted to do.

But stuff is always more complicated than that, and that’s the theme of The Vietnam War. Burns and Novick are great researchers, but they’ve outdone themselves. Like Burns’ masterpiece, The Civil War, it shies away from the notion that history is the story of Great Men doing Bold Deeds, and points instead to the forces and incentives pushing and pulling the actors. There’s no Lincoln or Grant in this story, but that makes it all the richer.

The Vietnam War

Categories
Letters To The Editor Opinion

Letters to the Editor

Best of Memphis

Once again, the Flyer‘s “Best of Memphis” issue has both entertained and infuriated me. I realize that polling is an imperfect art and the (sometimes) lowest common denominator will determine the winner. And yes, I like Huey’s hamburgers.

But seriously, how can a multi-million-dollar golf course such as Spring Creek Ranch possibly be tied (for third-best golf course) with a goat track like Overton Park? And how can a pedestrian “Italian” restaurant like Pete and Sam’s possibly be in consideration for “Best Italian” in the same garlic breath as Ronnie Grisanti’s?

I could go on: “Best Service” had Texas de Brazil first, followed by Chick-Fil-A??? Holy crap! That’s just insane. And Mud Island Amphitheater winning third in “Best Place To Hear Live Music”? Yeah, like what, twice a year?

I know the Flyer doesn’t have any control over the voting, but, people, please — show some common sense!

Ricky Gardner

Memphis

I want to know how Geoff Calkins and Wendi Thomas win “Best Columnist” every year when the Flyer offers us such stellar and superior talents as Jackson Baker, John Branston, Mary Cashiola, and Bruce VanWyngarden?

Haven’t you people ever heard of stuffing the ballot?

Mary Warren

Memphis

War Ethics

As I watched the excellent PBS Ken Burns series The War this past two weeks, I was struck how American expectations and standards seem to have changed since World War II. Think about what President Bush is reviled for in Iraq.  

Under an order signed by Roosevelt, well over 100,000 U.S. citizens — mostly based solely on their race — were sent to concentration camps and much of their property was stolen. For years after Pearl Harbor, Americans weren’t told the extent of our losses in men and ships. GIs in Europe, three years after we got into the war, had such lousy equipment to fight in winter, they were stealing from the German dead to try to keep from freezing.

The Allies killed 35,000 German civilians in one night in one city. A million Japanese civilians were burned out of their homes in one day in one city. German Army prisoners were executed out of hand, and an experienced U.S. soldier protesting this was warned he might get shot too.

“Intelligence failure” hardly seems an adequate term for the massive surprise military attack on Pearl Harbor after FDR had been in office for years. Of course, the U.S. in 1940-’41 had a military smaller than Romania’s, years after Germany and Japan were arming to the teeth.

If you don’t like Bush, fine — there’s a lot not to be happy with. But maybe think about what you accept without reservation in one president before you curse another.

Herbert E. Kook Jr.
Germantown

Air America

Because I still mourn the loss of Air America Radio, I am writing in response to the letter from the gentleman in Germantown (“Letters,” September 27th issue) and his reference to a “disgruntled” listener (and the three other listeners).

There were actually a lot more than three listeners and would probably have been many more if we had been made aware Air America wasn’t going to be available in our area. He mentions “hate,” and I won’t say there wasn’t some in evidence, but I guess it was just the wrong flavor for him, because I didn’t hear it directed at homosexuals, minorities, pro-choicers, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, or war protestors.

The “bile” being spewed was more directed at those who were perceived to be failing in their duty to protect and defend our Constitution and to respect our country as a nation of laws. How can dissent be un-American? Is that not what created this country? I would ask the gentleman, and anyone else, if you had been around in 1776, would you have stood with the king or the colonists?

Linda Cowart
Germantown

Iran and the U.S.

I keep hoping the damage the elected heads of state of Iran and the U.S. can do is reaching its limits.

It is a sad commentary on democracy when an “Ahmadina-Bush” is chosen. For my part, I vow never to vote for a Republican again, as I did in several races in the last general election.

Let’s send a message and work to take back our country from the election thieves of 2000!

Greg Williams

Memphis