Ken Burns Baseball on...

[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

[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.

[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 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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.