Ken Burns Baseball on...

[tbob]

Speaking of documentaries, I think the three greatest documentaries I have ever seen were:
3. Ken Burns' Baseball
2. Ken Burns' Civil War and
1. The Great War and the Shaping of the 20th Century

All three were outstanding and heartily recommended. According to many blogs, websites and writers, President Bush felt the World War I documentary was actually a veiled pacifistic effort and had an anti-war bent and did his part to see that it was pulled from production on VCR tape and never released on DVD. The reason given for this is that we were involved in a war in the Middle East and viewing this film series was counter-productive to the attitude toward the war effort. In 1996 when it was released on PBS, it won two Emmys including one for Best informational Series and in 1997 won a Peabody. To this date, it has never been released on DVD and is extremely difficult to find. I have seen copies of the 4 VCR tape set go for $500 on ebay when they are available. I haven't checked lately but over the last 7-8 years I have watched their sales, they were extremely rare. Regardless of your political leanings, this is an incredible series and should be watched.
Amazingly you can go to the PBS web site and order any of their past documentaries and shows on VCR or DVD, but this one is glaringly absent.
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Great-War-an...item1c0fddb0d7

[bmarlowe1]

tbob says:
President Bush felt the World War I documentary was actually a veiled pacifistic effort and had an anti-war bent and did his part to see that it was pulled from production on VCR tape and never released on DVD.

Paranoid and delusional beyond comprehension. Peter - you better watch out, they're gonna come and get you for posting that subversive info.

Released in 2005:

[Theoldprofessor]

Overall, of course, it's a grand documentary. But too much of the time Burns seems to think that baeball was invented somewhere between White Plains NY and Brocton MASS, and that anything played outside of the Boston NYC corridor really doesn't count as major league at all.

Another small but, I think, important observation. In covering the 1960 Series (whose outcome is lamented by NY born and bred author and part-time plagiarist Doris Kearns Goodwin), Burns uses Chuck Thompson's exciting and excited voice-over of the bottom of the ninth. On the whole, Thomson's call was absolutely dead on the money, except for a few minor errors. I think I can recall the way it ran pretty clearly.

Thompson: "Well, a little while ago, when we mentioned that this one, in typical fashion, was going right to the wire, little did we know. Art Ditmar throws .. THERE'S A SWING AND A HIGH FLY BALL GOING DEEP TO LEFT ... THIS MAY DO IT ... BACK TO THE WALL GOES BERRA. IT .. IS .. OVER THE FENCE, HOME RUN THE PIRATES WIN!"

Except Art Ditmar wasn't on the field -- he was warming up in the bullpen. Ralph Terry threw that pitch. So the thompson voice-ever has been doctored to have him say "Ralph Terry throws ... " There was also an error in Thompson's call of the final score, though I can't remember it as clearly. But the new "call" gets everything exactly right.

So what's the big deal? Doctor a few tapes. So what? (I think I'll just leave that alone and let it stink for a while.) So what is that Historian Burns should know lots better. You know he wouldn't have thrown in a few faked Brady photographs in "The Civil War." Why do it here?

[tbob]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

tbob says:
President Bush felt the World War I documentary was actually a veiled pacifistic effort and had an anti-war bent and did his part to see that it was pulled from production on VCR tape and never released on DVD.

Paranoid and delusional beyond comprehension. Peter - you better watch out, they're gonna come and get you for posting that subversive info.

Released in 2005:

Peter- wow, that is incredible! I can not believe a set went for that cheap. I saw one a few months ago sell on either Amazon or Half.com for around $250.

BMarlowe- that picture you posted is not the same documentary as the one I mentioned. I didn't say that I had any specific and first hand knowledge of George and the boys getting in the way of the film's release, only that I had seen many articles attributing the documentary's strange disappearance and failure to be available on VCR or DVD to the Prez and his attitudes toward the film. Maybe akin to his not wanting the nightly news showing coffins coming back, wanting to orchestrate the war effort for the news, etc.
I guess it may be paranoid and delusional to some but what's the old saying, "I may be paranoid but that doesn't mean someone isn't following me."

[mintacular]

But too much of the time Burns seems to think that baeball was invented somewhere between White Plains NY and Brocton MASS, and that anything played outside of the Boston NYC corridor really doesn't count as major league at all.

History is an interpretive and selective presentation of facts and a historian will no doubt choose a narrative and build a story around this. To think that every farmtown minor league team should be covered as equally to the big city NY/Boston squads is very boring history in my book...Ironically, many progressives think a scrappy minimum wage steel-worker in Homestead PA deserves equal coverage to the Titans of Industry Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, et al., well I don't. But now I digress.

As for the minor points about "doctored tapes", and Doris Kearns Goodwin I think those are ticky-tacky criticism....If these criticisms underline a pervasive manipulation of tape/footage then they are worthwhile topics of discussion. If not, then so what? They are minor asterisks in the big scheme of things.

[bmarlowe1]

tbob - you are right - the DVD is a different program.

However the VHS version of the correct program is easily found, and anyway - if any governmental agency tried to stifle PBS content, they would scream bloody murder - you wouldn't have to comb non-mainstream sources to find out. The daily newshour program and the weekly presentations of Frontline and Bill Moyers attest to their independence and get far more viewership (though not alot) than would a WWI documentary on DVD. Hence, giving credence to such an attempt is not rational.

[jlynch1960]

Strange thread to say the least, but here are a few thoughts.

It's been awhile since I watched the entire series (Baseball), but it seems clear that Burns was trying to demonstrate how baseball plays a larger role in American life than simply as a game - in many ways attempting to bring an intellectual bearing to our understanding of the game by placing it in a larger context of who we are as a people.

Since most intellectuals tend to be liberals (Geo. Will notwithstanding) and many conservatives tend to be anti-intellectual (another George comes to mind), it's only natural that the non baseball playing interviewees would have a more liberal bent. In fact, George Will plays into this perfectly because he is one of the few conservatives who has been able to bring some form of higher analysis to the table (e.g., "Men at Work"). I'd be hard pressed to name another conservative commentator who fits this role.

The Burns brothers don't make documentaries that simply recite history as facts and figures -which is what a lot of people posting here seem to want. Their films simply wouldn't be as interesting as they are if they were made as such.

[Theoldprofessor]

Ironically, many progressives think a scrappy minimum wage steel-worker in Homestead PA deserves equal coverage to the Titans of Industry Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, et al.

Both of my grandfathers were "scrappy minimum wage steel workers" in Homestead, PA. That masterful "titan of industry," Mr. Andrew Carnegie, was in part responsible for the 1892 disaster in Homestead, though he ran off to Scotland before the thing came to a head, leaving one Henry Clay Frick to do pretty much what he wanted. Result -- 10 dead and Carnegie's legacy permanently damaged. He returned from vacation after the strike ended. No, I think the more coverage those Titans receive, the better off we all are.

Sorry for the interrruption. Back to baseball. As far as I know, Ford Frick and Henry Clay Frick were not in any way related.

[FrankWakefield]

.

[D. Broughman]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

What Burns DID do with Baseball, is to get a bit of interest rekindled in the minds of some folks. Whether they watched it because of the history of the game, because of the interviewees, because of the examination of the racial barrier... whatever the reason, folks who watched that saw video of Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe D, Ted W, Stan M.... it revived interest in the history of the game, it started interest anew in some who watched the series. We may well have a few more collectors of the old stuff because of what Burns did.

I think Frank hit it right on the head. Burns revived interest in baseball.

[Brian-Chidester]

Burns's documentary also came out the year of the Players' Strike, and may very well have given all the people who were pissed at the players something to think about. Burns's film does not portray the owners in very good light. Even up through the late 1980s. "Collusion" was a great section of the final film.

[FrankWakefield]

.

[Brian-Chidester]

The film series said a lot about the business of baseball that might have been right in front of my face, but I'd never personally considered before. Things such as official MLB being an organization of the owners, and by extension, the commisioner(s) and even the Hall of Fame. I mean, a man like Kenesaw Mountain Landis, to me, is an utter disgrace to the Hall of Fame. Yeah, yeah, he might have cleaned up baseball after its worse scandal, but if for no other reason than his outward prejudice towards blacks (which in effect WAS the thing that kept them out of MLB until his death), and his anti-labor decision to not bring a verdict down with regards to the Federal League... I personally think he poses the greatest case for one being REMOVED from the Hall of Fame. But, of course, he championed the owners.

Do the owners or the commisioner's office care in the least about a lowly player like Joe Jackson? No, they don't. That would be like someone from the Milam or Bryant family coming out and expressing guilt and remorse for what happened to Emmett Till. The commissioner's office would have to publically apologize for allowing what happened to Joe Jackson to stand for as long as it has. In my estimation, that is the only justice that will suffice.

[ChiefBenderForever]

I thought it was a wonderful work of art and he did a great job considering he had very little time to cover each era. Of course New York would get a lot of coverage considering their history and fan base. It would be cool to see nine innings on each era so more could be covered. For the average fan of baseball who only knows about Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb it is a great introduction to the history of the game.

[bmarlowe1]

Brian-Chidester says re Landis:
"...but if for no other reason than his outward prejudice towards blacks (which in effect WAS the thing that kept them out of MLB until his death)"

This contention is very well discredited. For starters, I would refer you to 4 articles in the Summer 2009 Baseball Research Journal beginning on page 26.

Did Landis fail to show leadership on this issue and just float along with the status-quo? That seems to be the consensus. Should that keep him out of the HoF? Perhaps, but we should at least be accurate as to the reason.

[Brian-Chidester]

So the quote in Ken Burns's film where Landis writes, "The answer is no"... that was made up by Burns?

[howard38]

Brian-Childester,

I understand the point you were trying to make but I'd advise against using Emmett Till in any kind of analogy involving Joe Jackson. It will seem to some that you are saying what "happened" to Jackson is comparable to what happened to Till and hyperbole like that will not win you any arguments.

Howard

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

So the quote in Ken Burns's film where Landis writes, "The answer is no"... that was made up by Burns?

I don't know whether he made it up or not . What I do know is that Burns is very good at presentating broad sweeps of history - not so good at the scholarly part of getting all the details right - that is true not only in Baseball but in his WWII series. In some discussion with experts that advised him in Baseball - it is clear he is often more interested in effect than detailed accuracy. Quoting Landis in this manner may be very effective - but it may not be true.

I can tell you that in my specific area of expertise he went against solid advice and presented mis-identified images. The photo of Candy Cummings he used is extremely compelling - but it is not Candy Cummings and he was told by experts that it wasn't - but he used it anyway. He was also mis-leading at times in his image presentation in The Civil War.

You ought to see what other researchers have to say. If you are that interested, the articles I cited are a good starting point - they present a variety of views. Burns made a nice contribution in some respects - but his is not the Bible of Baseball History.

If you like - I'll quote Burns, page 284:
"Judge Landis's replacement as baseball commisioner was....Albert Benjamin "Happy" Chandler....Chandler told his visitors, "If a black boy can make it on Okinawa or Guadalcanal, hell, he can make it in baseball." Still a secret vote was said to have shown that 15 out of 16 club owners opposed integration."

[tedzan]

Burns had an "agenda" in his BB documentary which resulted in quite a few "hyperboles" (as Howard and BMarlowe have alluded to).

Burns did similar things in his Jazz documentary....like not crediting great artists in Jazz such as Hoagy Carmichael, Lionel Hampton, etc.
that didn't fit his agenda.
There are other glaring omissions; however, these two Jazz greats immediately come to mind.

After a while, I just couldn't continue to watch the BB documentary for these reasons. I did not think it was worth watching his Jazz
documentary at all. But, I did read the book.

[slidekellyslide]

Outside of the few glaring errors that only baseball historians will notice I watched Burns baseball and thought it was great. Although I can watch Innings 1-4 over and over, I have little interest after that point. Every filmmaker has a point of view and that's what you're going to get. I don't think Burns has ever declared his documentary to be the authoritative history of the game. He gave his point of view, I'm not so sure that it was as important to him that we got an actual photo of Candy Cummings as it was to tell his story.

With that said...I like accuracy and I'd like to know who it was that told Burns it wasn't Cummings and when he told him.

[perezfan]

Like Ted Z, after a while, I just had to cease watching it as well. When I realized my level of annoyance was outweighing the enjoyment, I had to turn it off. The political agenda was far stronger than any baseball content.

Aside from the aforementioned "errors and omissions", the 1970s segment barely recognized (or even mentioned) the best team of the decade, and chose to focus on Bostonians' extreme disappointment, along with biased reactions from people like Mario Cuomo and the renowned baseball expert, Doris Kearns Goodwin.

I can appreciate the effort and don't begrudge those who loved it, but it wasn't my "cup of tea".

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by howard38

Brian-Childester,

I understand the point you were trying to make but I'd advise against using Emmett Till in any kind of analogy involving Joe Jackson. It will seem to some that you are saying what "happened" to Jackson is comparable to what happened to Till and hyperbole like that will not win you any arguments.

Howard

I'm not comparing what happened to these men... I'm comparing the justice system. Nothing more. In the case of Till's murder, it was a corrupt Southern court system. In the case of Jackson, it was a corrupt commissioners office.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Burns had an "agenda" in his BB documentary which resulted in quite a few "hyperboles" (as Howard and BMarlowe have alluded to).

Burns did similar things in his Jazz documentary....like not crediting great artists in Jazz such as Hoagy Carmichael, Lionel Hampton, etc.
that didn't fit his agenda.
There are other glaring omissions; however, these two Jazz greats immediately come to mind.

After a while, I just couldn't continue to watch the BB documentary for these reasons. I did not think it was worth watching his Jazz
documentary at all. But, I did read the book.

Completely agree about the ommission of Hoagy Carmichael. In the same respect, I thought Gerry Mulligan played a much bigger role in the creation of Modern jazz than Burns afforded him. But then again West Coast jazz was erased from the series almost entirely.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Outside of the few glaring errors that only baseball historians will notice I watched Burns baseball and thought it was great. Although I can watch Innings 1-4 over and over, I have little interest after that point. Every filmmaker has a point of view and that's what you're going to get. I don't think Burns has ever declared his documentary to be the authoritative history of the game. He gave his point of view, I'm not so sure that it was as important to him that we got an actual photo of Candy Cummings as it was to tell his story.

With that said...I like accuracy and I'd like to know who it was that told Burns it wasn't Cummings and when he told him.

Agreed. I'd also like to know the context of the Landis letter where he said, "the answer remains no." Because, even if the owners were 15 out of 16 against integration during Chandler's era, that didn't stop Branch Rickey from going forward. And that had everything to do with Landis passing away and the person that Chandler was.

[barrysloate]

Keep in mind everyone has a favorite team or player, and likewise a favorite jazz musician, that may have been given short shrift in the Burns' documentaries. And certainly he never tried to be encyclopedic in the way he approached his subjects. He focused on what he and his team felt were most important, and gave those areas a great deal of attention. My jazz favorite musician is Miles Davis, and he spent a lot of time on his career, so I for one was satisfied with the product.

We all agree there were errors and facts left out of all the Burns documentaries, but I believe that no one has ever tackled those subjects on film as well as he did.

And did anybody see his series on National Parks? It was terrific, and since I knew very little about them, if he left something important out I never would have known it. I was able to enjoy it exactly as it was presented.

[tedzan]

Gerry Mulligan was the other great Jazz artist I thought Burns gave "short shrift" to. Thanks for mentionong him.

Mulligan, along with the Dave Brubeck Quartet, Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie, Gene Krupa, Lionel Hampton, George
Shearing, and Jack Teagarden were my favorites at Birdland back in the late 1950's and the 1960's era.


TED Z

[barrysloate]

Mulligan is one of my favorites too...as well as Jack Teagarden.

[Brian-Chidester]

Yeah, Mulligan had so much to do with Miles Davis's solo career. After leaving Charlie Parker's band and playing with a wide variety of small combos in the 52nd Street clubs of NYC, Davis involved himself with Gil Evans and Gerry Mulligan, the latter of whom was a composer and was working with a nine piece band to mix fluidly concierto with jazz. The Birth of the Cool band became Miles Davis's Nonet, and because Davis had the contract with Capitol, he got to put his name on the "Birth of the Cool" album. In truth, it was a collaboration with Mulligan, Lee Konitz and Gil Evans, all of whom worked to write and arrange most of the numbers recorded there.

Miles continued his relationship with Gil Evans, and Mulligan moved to the West Cost and worked with the likes of Chet Baker and Art Farmer, etc., but both Mulligan and Davis were known as musicians who utilized the eraser concept more than any others. They erased or wiped away all of the excess and created a post-bop, sleek, modernist sound that revolutionized jazz. Miles gets the lion's share of the credit, and he deserves it... his music is incredible. But anyone who recognizes the brilliance of West Coast Cool jazz, which Burns chose not to, would have to acknowledge Mulligan as its progenitor.

[barrysloate]

Good information Brian. Another interesting sidelight is the entire Birth of the Cool album, and the new direction jazz would head post-1950, was born in Gil Evans' studio apartment in Manhattan. That's where the musicians gathered to work on their new ideas.

[Brian-Chidester]

It's true. 52nd Street was falling apart by 1950-51, as a club district. They had to have someplace to go. And besides, speakeasies were almost always in warehouses and apartments, no matter how good the club scene was.

That's the crazy thing about jazz. You can look to the recording sessions and say, "The albums where this guy or that guy played live in a club is even better," but then think about the fact that NO ONE captured these giants in apartments or other speakeasies.

We will always be left to wonder what Buddy Bolden sounded like. Sigh...

[barrysloate]

There are no recordings known of Bolden, are there?

[Brian-Chidester]

Negative.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

....
With that said...I like accuracy and I'd like to know who it was that told Burns it wasn't Cummings and when he told him.

Dan, the best public info on this is in a Net54 thread. go to:
http://tinyurl.com/ybe96ry

scroll down to #14. There is a bit more to this, but confidentially prevents me from saying more about it.

BTW - I have since found another good image of Cummings, but that is way O/T.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

Because, even if the owners were 15 out of 16 against integration during Chandler's era, that didn't stop Branch Rickey from going forward. And that had everything to do with Landis passing away and the person that Chandler was.

"....everything to do" - How do you know that? How do you know that it was primarily Landis alone that stopped Rickey? You've said nothing to support that.

History is rarely that simple. Landis's parents and grandparents were abolitionists, and his brothers actively opposed Klan candidates for congress. None of that makes him a hero - he wasn't. Nor was he the primary cause of the problem.

[Brian-Chidester]

One can only go by the letters and statements made by Happy Chandler with regards to soldiers fighting in the war, and that those good enough to fight should be good enough to play in MLB. Also the fact that Robinson broke in during the Chandler era.

As for Landis, enough attempts were made to integrate baseball during his era to affirm that either he flat out rejected their entry, or else he was passive and upheld the owners' sentiment.

But I know history is never that simple. If it could be proven beyond a doubt that he was instrumental in upholding segregation in baseball, then he would (IMHO) be a major blot on the Hall of Fame's reputation.

[bmarlowe1]

[quote=Brian-Chidester;783394]
As for Landis, enough attempts were made to integrate baseball during his era to affirm that either he flat out rejected their entry, or else he was passive and upheld the owners' sentiment.quote]

I agree with that statement as it leaves the question open.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Dan, the best public info on this is in a Net54 thread. go to:
http://tinyurl.com/ybe96ry

scroll down to #14. There is a bit more to this, but confidentially prevents me from saying more about it.

BTW - I have since found another good image of Cummings, but that is way O/T.

Yep, my problem is that Burns seems to take a beating every time someone brings this issue up, but Corey can't even remember if he told Burns or the producer. And as far as confidential sources go, as long as they remain confidential I remain skeptical about when and if they notified Burns. What's the point in remaining confidential about such a triviality??

There seems to be such a dislike for Burns's Baseball documentary among SABR types, but as far as I can tell there has never been an undertaking to showcase the history of the game in such a grand way. Mistakes were made, but none so egregious as to ruin a really great documentary.

Hell, I didn't even know until this thread that some folks had found enough of a political bent in it as to turn them off. I can understand that they may not like Doris Kearns-Goodwin, or Mario Cuomo, but these people were all talking about the game as it related to them or to America...they weren't discussing Health Care or National Defense.

[bmarlowe1]

Dan: There seems to be such a dislike for Burns's Baseball documentary among SABR types...

That is true - it's because we tend to be overly obsessive as to details (kind of anal-retentive I guess)

Dan: "but as far as I can tell there has never been an undertaking to showcase the history of the game in such a grand way. Mistakes were made, but none so egregious as to ruin a really great documentary."

I agree. What I disagreed with was Brian's citing of Burns as providing a simple conclusive answer to the cause of the continuation of MLB segregation thru the 1940's. I am not even sure if Burns intended that.

Dan: "And as far as confidential sources go, as long as they remain confidential I remain skeptical about when and if they notified Burns."

That's a fair statement, but the confidentiallity is not my choice. All I can say is that more than one very knowlegable consultant to Burns' project advised against using the photo. The person who wanted it used (also a consultant) was the owner of the photo and either had recently sold it or would relatively soon sell it (I don't recall the exact date of the sale). It was a really bad choice made from competing consultants, one of whom clearly had a $ interest in the photo being used as Cummings.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

That's a fair statement, but the confidentiallity is not my choice. All I can say is that more than one very knowlegable consultant to Burns' project advised against using the photo. The person who wanted it used (also a consultant) was the owner of the photo and either had recently sold it or would relatively soon sell it (I don't recall the exact date of the sale). It was a really bad choice made from competing consultants, one of whom clearly had a $ interest in the photo being used as Cummings.

Clearly then the fault lies with competing consultants. Highly doubtful Burns had any interest in misrepresenting a photo he had no investment in.

[bmarlowe1]

[quote=slidekellyslide;783419]Clearly then the fault lies with competing consultants.../quote]

On that we'll have to agree to disagree - a historian will always be confronted with experts who differ (that is certainly the case with how much continuing segregation was the fault of Landis - experts do disagree).

In this case Burns or his producer made a bad choice - the fact that experts disagree should mean you don't portray the photo as positively identified - you find another photo that everyone agrees on or you just skip it. I have advised some authors to do just that.

[slidekellyslide]

Eh...filmmaker or historian? Burns went with a photo that had already appeared in a SABR publication identified as Cummings. We still have NO proof that Burns was even aware of the controversy surrounding the photo when he made the film.

[ChiefBenderForever]

He is a great story teller and somewhat of a historian. I don't get the political agenda at all, he made a great starting point, now it's up to others to build upon that. It's his choice to do whatever he wants. Sounds like he made a mistake on a photo and maybe a few other things, but when you look at the overall project it was a success.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Eh...filmmaker or historian? Burns went with a photo that had already appeared in a SABR publication identified as Cummings..

Placed there (and at least 6 other publications both prior and subsequent to Burns) by the same person/owner who wanted it used in Burns' project.

[slidekellyslide]

Are you saying that Ken Burns was aware of this decade long evil plot by Mark Rucker to make millions on an anonymous 19th century baseball photo?

[barrysloate]

For the record Ken Burns and Mark Rucker became pretty good friends during the making of the documentary, and he counted on Mark's photo library a great deal. If Mark told Ken that the tintype pictured Candy Cummings, I doubt Ken had the inclination to do independent research. If Ken was told by others it was not Cummings, he then had to make a decision. I'm not sticking up for or condemning anyone, I just think that verifying that particular image was not of paramount importance to Burns. I think he took Mark's word and went with it.

I know Mark always believed it was Cummings, but I think he now realizes that the general consensus is that it is not. I have certainly given him my opinion on several occasions.

[Brian-Chidester]

think that piture of Cummings, which really isn't a picture of Cummings, was used on the 2009 Obak series. So, even 15 years after Burns used the image, it's still being labeled as Candy Cummings. I think that's a shame.

[bmarlowe1]

Brian - I am 100% with you on that one

This "new" to me photo of Cummings appeared in the McFarland reprint of the 1914 Richter's History and Records of Base Ball.

Barry - if you need to - feel free to draw a mustache on him.

[Hot Springs Bathers]

I had the great fortune to meet Mr. Burns and talk with him at length about his baseball effort when he attended the Hot Springs (AR) Documentary Film Festival.

During that visit he stressed that all of his films, which he considers a continuous series, are intended to explain what makes us Americans. His intent is to weave a fabric of human traits that show how we are part part of the other nations that we come from but distinctly different. Thus very American subjects like baseball, jazz and OUR national parks. Of course I am still not happy that he ignored the first National Park-Hot Springs in his latest film.

The good news-bad news is that for the first time he is revisiting a film when he releases The 10th Inning this Fall. He feels that baseball has changed so much since the original release that he needed to add a couple of hours. I am afraid that will mean the strike and of course steroids.

During our visit I asked him about films on other sports and he said that he has no plans for any others. The next day he approached me and said he is still not sure where football fits and how it has influenced American life. He then said maybe in the future?

I guess what I am getting at in this post is that politics, race and sport all are all factors in how baseball has helped shape America.