Ken Burns Baseball on...

[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.