Leonardo da Vinci

Okay. So. Two 2-hour episodes make up this documentary on da Vinci on PBS. It has the Burns name attached to it, and is about a fascinating subject, so what could you possibly not like about it?

It turns out it is boring to the point where I was unable to stay awake. I am so disappointed in this. It had nothing new to add to the wonderful Isaacson biography and frankly, I'm not sure why they made it... unless it was because they needed something for their membership drive.

It would have been okay if there was nothing new AND if what was presented was done so elegantly -- beautifully -- and gracefully. But it lacked those things. It was tedious. I felt like I SHOULD like it because it was Ken Burns and on PBS. But I did not like it.

Trying to watch it, I felt it wandered aimlessly and totally missed a sense of cohesion.

If you watched it and enjoyed it I am so glad for you. I did watch the whole thing but felt it was a waste of time.

It made me want t go back to rewatch da Vinci's Demons. It was crazy but it was fun crazy. This was simply... tedious.

I basically agree with Jezlang's comments on the use of subtitles in this presentation. This is a film about ART; the subtitles are just annoying and distracting. This would have been more effective if there had been a translated voiceover of the non-English speakers. That way I would not have had to split my attention between what was being said, and the art that was being discussed. And yes, somebody should have noticed that small yellow subtitles don't work well on a sepia background!

Ken Burns should know better. Imagine the great Civil War series with subtitles instead of narrations.

These subtitles are almost as annoying as the IMDB character count!

Ken Burns makes solid, comprehensive documentaries about self-counsciously big subjects - not for him small, quirky tales. Leonarda da Vinci is thus perhaps an unsurprising subject, and the result is genuinely educational, but also extremely reverential. The narrative talks about the maestro's sense of fun, but the documentary itself is characterised by awe. In its conclusion, it does mention that a previous view, of Leonardo as a self-contained superman aside from broader renaissance thought, has gone out of fashion; but it might almost be seen as trying to restore it. To its credit, the series isn't all gush, and it does explain what made his art (and thinking) revolutionary. It's certainly worth watching even if it tries a bit too hard.

This is not a review of the series, because I think it is compelling and interesting.

My review is of the idiocy of the reviews. The main complaint seems to be that there are subtitles and people don't want to read, which to me is pure laziness. Italians speak italian. Get over it. If you need things narrated for you and hate hearing non-English speakers, you are the problem. Not this documentary.

And the other complaint is there is not enough focus on the Mona Lisa, which has been discussed ad nauseum by others. I loved learning about his sketches and writings and smaller works. This is not a Mona Lisa doc. There are plenty of others out there for you to watch.

Reviewers, do better.

Two strange production choices make this turgid four hours a bigger slog to get through than it might have been and should have been: Talking heads, no doubt knowledgeable, but not necessarily pleasing to listen to, not just for the non-English speakers but others as well. So the choice was to use their (sometimes grating) voices and put the translations in script at the bottom of the screen. But if I wanted to READ about DaVinci, I'd crack a book. The problem with superimposed text is that the viewer eye track is on the text and not on the always-compelling visuals. This would matter less with many topics but we're here to appreciate DaVinci so what on Earth were you thinking? Bad choice two is the text itself: Small size, strange font and worse, rendered in mellow yellow/key lime green that vanishes into illegibility depending on the visual/artwork that's on the screen. Dear lord. So you make the viewer read (not absorb visuals) but even THAT mission is a failure. It needs to actually be readable -- ALL of it. Perhaps I'm a minority and most viewers won't be bothered by any of the presentation. I spent 25 years in TV production (news, documentaries) so I perhaps look at things with a different eye. But even the content isn't compelling enough to compensate for the ...suboptimal...visual production.