Nice analysis, but I would reply that the emotionalism or sentimentality Gage decries in "The Civil War" is also the main source of its appeal. Which do you think today's Americans find more appealing? Historical realism, including nonstop reminders of the loss and horror of war? Or a depiction of the sentiments of the era, sentiments promoting personal honor and celebrating the "manly exercise" called war?

Burns' audience is, after all, the same people who by a wide margin preferred Fox News coverage of the early Iraq war. It's also true that that the Civil War remains controversial subject matter, for reasons both cultural and racial. Burns had good cause to tread lightly.

If you view "The Civil War" not as an endorsement/indictment of war but as a set of insights into how Americans experience war, you may gain something transcendental. Yes, we have always engaged in a great deal of noncritical thinking and yes, it is always dangerous. Nothing treads on liberty like war. But I think Burns' purpose was to present the artifact of our noncritical thinking and not to render judgement.

Finally, anything that makes Americans think is probably a good thing. I love the place, but it is filled with probably the most ignorant and arrogant people in the world.

"The Civil War" remains, in my mind, truly great stuff. Must-see DVD.

- MW

"Burns' audience is, after all, the same people who by a wide margin preferred Fox News coverage of the early Iraq war. "

I would be fascinated to see you back that wildly speculative statement up....maybe you are right, but isn't Burns stuff aired on PBS? Not exactly a hotbed of conservativism....

However, I am curious why the reviewer seems to take Burns to task for only covering the American experience in his film when the reviewer also mentions that the opening titles say: "This is the story of four American towns...." Seems to pretty much sum up the intent of the film....

stonesean:

However, I am curious why the reviewer seems to take Burns to task for only covering the American experience in his film ....

I am curious why you and others think that the reviewer is "taking Burns to task" for including only the American experience. Her statements about what is left out are purely fact, with no judgment.

Her criticism is the lack of a more objective analysis, such as American racism in the Pacific leading to different behavior there than in Europe - American behavior, from the perspective of Americans, should fall within Burns' declared purview.

Good points, stonesean and Fitzpatrick. An even better one might have been, why did I repeatedly cite the wrong Burns film entirely...

Sorry about that, everyone. Sure with the new Fray had preview and editing features.

But pretty much everything I said applies equally well to both of Burns' best-known works. His techniques are designed, I think, more to provoke emotional engagement than anything else.

You're right, stonesean, that PBS ain't NASCAR. There is certainly more critical thinking going on there. But no one, and I mean NO ONE of national note is currently arguing that a U.S. soldier can be anything less than a complete hero. Witness the recent bipartisan furor over MoveOn's little "General Betray-Us" pun; even our strongest critical thinkers seem to have a blindspot where war and patriotism intersect.

Individually smart, perhaps, but collectively dumb. Hence my "wildly speculative statement," which of course reflects only personal belief. What moral outrage I possess is directed against those who consciously manipulate our political, religious, and economic weaknesses for personal gain. That, for me, is an excellent definition of evil.

I thought the reviewer did a very good job overall. I was just offering counterpoint.

Cheers,

- MW