Peter Eisenstadt's invites comments on Ric Burns' "New York," and therefore
presumably on his own criticism of the documentary series.  He observes that
apparently non-historians liked it better than professional historians, at
least among his acquaintances.  The problem with relying on the
professionals' evaluation is they generally know the history and are focused
on its presentation, whereas the non-historians may know less of the history
and so are looking at the history being presented.  Therefore, they would
seem likely to enjoy it more, the more they learn from it things they didn't
know before.

I agree with Peter that the narration too often used superlatives about New
York City that even I, a lifelong resident, found irritating after a while.
I can imagine how that must have annoyed nonresidents more so.  Indeed, much
of the narration came across as double and triple underlining of what
historians Jackson, Wallace and others had already said in the presentation,
and said better.

Also Peter makes a good point about the documentary adopting and preaching
this mythic image of New York as a perpetual Phoenix rising.  If the
narration would have merely presented that as a popular viewpoint held by
many, the presentation would have seemed less like boosterism.  But we need
remember that the project was undertaken with every encouragement from New
York City looking to its centennial as a five-borough municipality.

This viewer found that, on balance, the documentary's strengths outnumber and
outweigh its flaws, and that it deserves being listed as an educational tool,
provided that list also includes -- and at higher placement on the list --
such masterworks as the Encyclopedia of NYC, Gotham, and in due course
Peter's own major opus.

Thomas McCarthy
general secretary
New York Correction History Society
http://www.correctionhistory.org
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]