The Continental Op
Joined May 2000
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews26
The Continental Op's rating
I am neither a musician nor a serious scholar of jazz, just a fan,but even I could see the flaws in Ken Burns' sometimes fascinating, other times infuriating documentary on the history of "America's music".
Spanning the century, this nineteen hour documentary is most effective at the beginning, when Burns' gift for research is most apparent. You can see the pains he took searching documentation and rare photographs to paint a picture of the roots of the music. However, as the narrative moves on, his over-reliance for third and fourth hand accounts and his own ignorance of the genre becomes apparent.
I am not going to go into the laundry list of "should have" musicians (Lionel Hampton, Stan Getz, JJ Johnson, Charles Mingus gets only ten minutes!) and others that got short shrift or weren't even mentioned. I'd be here all day.
However, I will say that Burns obviously relied too much on critics and writers in putting together his material. Towards the end, especially when they begin to talk of the 50's and 60's, the whole program begins to have the taint of academia all over it.
For example, the 50s phenomenon of the wildly popular California-based "cool jazz" is dismissed by critic Nat Hentoff as "bland" and then never mentioned again.
I am sorry to disagree with the distinguished Mr. Hentoff, but as anyone who has heard the recordings of such greats as Gerry Mulligan and Chet Baker can atest, the music they were producing was just as creative and exciting as their East Coast, black contemporaries.
To people like Mr. Hentoff, the west coast musicians committed the ultimate sin of being white and somewhat popular. Much of the documentary continues along the same "us vs. them" vein.
It seems the people who assisted Mr. Burns took advantage of his ignorance and stamped their orthodox biases on what could have been a great work. Whole genres and types (fusion, Cubano, Brazillian) are either dismissed outright or ignored. It reinforces my view that critics are the most useless species on the face of the planet.
However, I do have to admit that many parts were fascinating. When Burns does interview eyewitnesses to certain events, it shows the flashes of "what might have been". I just wish that he wouldn't have blindly followed the opinions of the the critics and academics and let the audience discover for themselves what to think.
Spanning the century, this nineteen hour documentary is most effective at the beginning, when Burns' gift for research is most apparent. You can see the pains he took searching documentation and rare photographs to paint a picture of the roots of the music. However, as the narrative moves on, his over-reliance for third and fourth hand accounts and his own ignorance of the genre becomes apparent.
I am not going to go into the laundry list of "should have" musicians (Lionel Hampton, Stan Getz, JJ Johnson, Charles Mingus gets only ten minutes!) and others that got short shrift or weren't even mentioned. I'd be here all day.
However, I will say that Burns obviously relied too much on critics and writers in putting together his material. Towards the end, especially when they begin to talk of the 50's and 60's, the whole program begins to have the taint of academia all over it.
For example, the 50s phenomenon of the wildly popular California-based "cool jazz" is dismissed by critic Nat Hentoff as "bland" and then never mentioned again.
I am sorry to disagree with the distinguished Mr. Hentoff, but as anyone who has heard the recordings of such greats as Gerry Mulligan and Chet Baker can atest, the music they were producing was just as creative and exciting as their East Coast, black contemporaries.
To people like Mr. Hentoff, the west coast musicians committed the ultimate sin of being white and somewhat popular. Much of the documentary continues along the same "us vs. them" vein.
It seems the people who assisted Mr. Burns took advantage of his ignorance and stamped their orthodox biases on what could have been a great work. Whole genres and types (fusion, Cubano, Brazillian) are either dismissed outright or ignored. It reinforces my view that critics are the most useless species on the face of the planet.
However, I do have to admit that many parts were fascinating. When Burns does interview eyewitnesses to certain events, it shows the flashes of "what might have been". I just wish that he wouldn't have blindly followed the opinions of the the critics and academics and let the audience discover for themselves what to think.
Since i have only seen about three episodes of this show, I may not be fit to judge, but I must say i like what I see.
Ordinarily, I run to the hills when words like "quirky" and "heartwarming" are used to describe any show, but this truly is a very entertaining show.
It is funny without being cutesy and the two leads have very good rapport with each other. It's hard to believe they are not actually related.
Yes, it can occasionally skirt the "7th Heaven" squeaky clean, white bread sappiness pit, and the setting (a small town somewhere in New England) can be a bit too idylic for some tastes. But they manage to eschew preachiness and the dialog is truly sometimes very witty. It's a damn sight funnier than "Friends".
"Gilmore Girls" shows real promise. I hope the WB lets it stick around for a bit.
Ordinarily, I run to the hills when words like "quirky" and "heartwarming" are used to describe any show, but this truly is a very entertaining show.
It is funny without being cutesy and the two leads have very good rapport with each other. It's hard to believe they are not actually related.
Yes, it can occasionally skirt the "7th Heaven" squeaky clean, white bread sappiness pit, and the setting (a small town somewhere in New England) can be a bit too idylic for some tastes. But they manage to eschew preachiness and the dialog is truly sometimes very witty. It's a damn sight funnier than "Friends".
"Gilmore Girls" shows real promise. I hope the WB lets it stick around for a bit.
Cate Blanchett is on the shortlist for the title of the best actor of the last few decades. Her portrayal as a small-town widow/psychic in this film will do much to help her in that regard.
The plot of "The Gift", at first glance, is pretty standard southern- gothic stuff. Think "The Sixth Sense" meets "Slingblade":Annie Wilson, a young widowed mother of three who scrapes out a living as a dining-room psychic and tarot card reader, begins having disturbing visions of a missing local woman. When the woman turns up dead, exactly where Wilson said she would be, all matter of suspicious, colorful suspects crawl out from other the rocks. Finally, suspicion falls on Donnie Barksdale, the town's requisite bullying redneck.
Anyone familiar with the genre will have the ending figured out by the middle of the film (if not sooner.) But I do not think that the shortcomings of the plot detracts from enjoyment of the film.
The real gift of "The Gift" rely on the atmosphere that director Sam Raimi injects into this hoary chestnut of a story. He manages to sustain a sense of gloom and dread over almost every second of the film. Like any good suspense director, Raimi realizes that the potential of fear is far more effective than a gallon of blood splattered on the screen. In the process, he creates some truly scary and eerie moments.This is not the Raimi of Evil Dead and Darkman, all raucous and self-referentially winking at the camera. This Raimi is actually (gasp!) subtle and mature. Actually interested in things like character development and performances. If this is considered "selling out" (more like growing up) so be it. I like it.
Finally, there are the breathtaking performances. I am not a worshipper of acting, by any means. If an actor is mearly competent in a well crafted film, I am pretty lenient. I have a hard time distinguishing qualities in acting, unless they are very piss-poor. To me a good script will usually go farther than any acting fireworks.
However, I will make an exeption in this case. Everyone in this film was superb. I doubt very much that the likes of Greg Kinnear or Keanu Reeves (playing against type as a surprisingly scary Donnie Barksdale) will ever be this good again.
But Blanchett is the true wonder of the story. Her Annie Wilson is tough, vulnerable and very appealing. She manages to handle the super-natural nature of the story without comic-book melodrama or "Northern Exposure"-style quirkiness. She plays it completely natural and straight. She rises above caricature and hokiness.As far as I'm concerened, there is noone better than Blanchett.
If the myopic, stodgy acadamy can look past their habitual distaste for genre pieces and give Blanchett a well deserved Oscar, it will go a long way to help their battered credibility.
See this movie!
The plot of "The Gift", at first glance, is pretty standard southern- gothic stuff. Think "The Sixth Sense" meets "Slingblade":Annie Wilson, a young widowed mother of three who scrapes out a living as a dining-room psychic and tarot card reader, begins having disturbing visions of a missing local woman. When the woman turns up dead, exactly where Wilson said she would be, all matter of suspicious, colorful suspects crawl out from other the rocks. Finally, suspicion falls on Donnie Barksdale, the town's requisite bullying redneck.
Anyone familiar with the genre will have the ending figured out by the middle of the film (if not sooner.) But I do not think that the shortcomings of the plot detracts from enjoyment of the film.
The real gift of "The Gift" rely on the atmosphere that director Sam Raimi injects into this hoary chestnut of a story. He manages to sustain a sense of gloom and dread over almost every second of the film. Like any good suspense director, Raimi realizes that the potential of fear is far more effective than a gallon of blood splattered on the screen. In the process, he creates some truly scary and eerie moments.This is not the Raimi of Evil Dead and Darkman, all raucous and self-referentially winking at the camera. This Raimi is actually (gasp!) subtle and mature. Actually interested in things like character development and performances. If this is considered "selling out" (more like growing up) so be it. I like it.
Finally, there are the breathtaking performances. I am not a worshipper of acting, by any means. If an actor is mearly competent in a well crafted film, I am pretty lenient. I have a hard time distinguishing qualities in acting, unless they are very piss-poor. To me a good script will usually go farther than any acting fireworks.
However, I will make an exeption in this case. Everyone in this film was superb. I doubt very much that the likes of Greg Kinnear or Keanu Reeves (playing against type as a surprisingly scary Donnie Barksdale) will ever be this good again.
But Blanchett is the true wonder of the story. Her Annie Wilson is tough, vulnerable and very appealing. She manages to handle the super-natural nature of the story without comic-book melodrama or "Northern Exposure"-style quirkiness. She plays it completely natural and straight. She rises above caricature and hokiness.As far as I'm concerened, there is noone better than Blanchett.
If the myopic, stodgy acadamy can look past their habitual distaste for genre pieces and give Blanchett a well deserved Oscar, it will go a long way to help their battered credibility.
See this movie!