Analysis Of Not For Ourselves Alone By Ken Burns

Ken Burns is a historical documentary filmmaker. He made a documentary about the civil war that was criticized and seen my many. Many Americans viewed the war in a different way based on the information or lack of information provided by Burns. Rose and Corley share the dangers that come with filmmakers shaping the way people view historical events. In this essay, we will view the weaknesses of Burns films. In "Not For Ourselves Alone," Vivien Ellen Rose and Julie Corley critique Burns Civil War documentary. Vivien Ellen Rose is the chief of Visitor Services and Cultural Resources. Julie Corley is a professional historian with a master's degree in the public history program from Arizona University. (Rose and Corley,

Those watching his film are unaware of whether the music has correlation with the specific historical period or whether the music is simply old sounding. Rose and Corley state that Burns highlighted Stanton and Anthony as heroes but failed to focus on their leadership of the women's movement, which took place in the nineteenth century. "Burns actively shapes interviews with his on-film experts, cutting off statements that do not fit his narrative line and losing rich analytical and descriptive opportunities." (Rose and Corley, p. 54). In this, the main argument is that Burns shaped his film to fit and highlight what he wanted. He based his facts off of what would fit into his narrative. History that is viewed by many is seen from the perspective he chose to show it through. Many historians do not agree with the way he chose to share history because many times it lacked the depth of the situations. Rose and Corley say that Burns work undermines the work of scholarship and that his work confuses the past and present with the music and images in his films. (Rose and Corley, p. 56). Burns films have a huge impact on the way people see history. It is said that he is replacing scholars and his work is treated as sources. "He is replacing historians with the local audiences of nationally significant places." (Rose and Corley, p. 57). This can

Burns spreads a sentimental vision of it. In "Ken Burns's the Civil War: Historians Respond" by O'Connor, he shares what shortcomings the film had. There are six historians who criticize the work and what information Burns had lacked about the war. One historian, Clinton, said that Burns had failed to fully describe the impact the war had on black Americans. She also says that Burns "sold emancipation down the river." (O'Connor p. 241). Another historian, Gallagher said that Burns hadn't provided enough information about the battlefield. Gallagher had argued that Burns lacked in explaining the role of technology and lack of complexity. He also says that Burns hadn't explained the emphasis on Virginia and the eastern theater of the war. (O'Connor p. 241). A quote from Gallagher, "eleven screen hours should have allowed more complexity." (O'Connor p. 241). Eric Foner stated that there was the racial justice problem that the war had left unanswered and Burns hadn't properly addressed in his film. Each historian had said that Burns left out significant information about the war and some said he gave misinformation or ignored some