--- In [email protected], Tom Pall <thomas.pall@...> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:22 PM, azgrey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJdKK6L8Z2o here, > > > > > > who bears a strong resemblance to our Author's Friend. > > > > > > > > > Yes indeed she does, Tom. Very observant of you. The censorious editor > > could most definitely be judged a Tuklu of Carry Nation. Several other > > qualities also appear to be in common in addition to the prominent sagging > > jowls on a sallow face completely devoid of humor and warmhearted > > compassion. > > > > Namely: > > > > -failed in the theatre. > > -missionary zeal for highly questionable goals. > > -"Defender of the Faith" (boy, Skolnick sure hit a bulls-eye on that one) > > -considered herself of the highest moral character and considered anyone > > who disagrees with her as morally defective and really really stoooopid. > > -was considered even by most of her supporters as mentally unstable and, > > purportedly, at least 50% of her closest supporters considered her quite > > insane. > > > > Could it be the we, the fair readers of FFL have discovered a true American > > Tuklu? > > > > I believe you are incorrect on the start date of the film, Tom. Did you > > miss episode one? > > > > > I think I tuned into episode 1 last night. I'm in the Deep South. Takes a > while for those radio waves to propagate. > > BTW, you forgot the hatchet. As in hatchet job on her opposition and what > do editors do with other peoples' writing?
I consciously left out the hatchet, Tom. Didn't wanna get all heavy handed with the post. > Now that I'm chewing up my quota of posts. > > I found the crap about the Anti-Saloon and Temperance movements being an > Anglo cause looking out for the welfare of the huddled masses to be a bit > patronizing. It is true, however, that by the time Prohibition came into > effect the vast mass of Americans lived in cities, we had a large amount of > immigrants living in Hells Kitchen type places where the saloon was the > parlor for a man going home to a family of 17 living in one room, where the > saloon was a bit of feeling like a man after 18 hours a day of dehumanizing, > not to mention emasculating work, a place to receive mail, have wakes, > ethnic appreciation meetings, get translations, learn to speak English, > learn to read English, a place to vote, to find a job and on and on. While > the Anglos were in their uptown clubs talking about buying Venezuela and > getting piss drunk, that was all good because it was in suits and in > private. Saloons weren't private. I'm confused. Did you find the "Anglo cause" aspect patronizing or its treatment in the film? I ask because of course it was patronizing as well as historically accurate. > > How interesting that the Queen Mother carried a flask, as does the Queen. > Now that wasn't mentioned. I believe that is mentioned in Okrent's book. Brief mention was made in the 2nd episode to lack of British support for Prohibition in America. If every anecdote in the book was explored, this would be another 10 part 25 hour film. > > I think Burns should have quit years ago or gotten better funding. One > historian, two readers? Burns brought the pathos of the Civil War to life, > though there to he didn't go into the events up to and the real causes of > the War of Northern Aggression. Burns took a very interesting subject, > anti-saloons and temperance, and made them boring. I believe we have come to the crux of your criticism. You found it boring. You definitely have to be in the right mood to view anything by Ken Burns. I, personally, find myself surprised that, at the end of an episode, two hour has expired. Just settling into the mind-state necessary makes the viewing experience flow. For me. I get it that it's not everybody's cuppa cinema. As far as funding, one historian, and two readers go, you have got to be kidding. http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/about/film-website-credits/ Again, I get it, you didn't like it. Letting that color your view of production values versus other Burns films is a different matter. I reserve my final opinion on the film until viewing the 3rd segment this evening. > > BTW, I have a special interest in Prohibition. When my maternal > grandfather got hurt in the coal mines in, I believe, Allentown, PA, he > moved to South River, NJ with the family and became a bootlegger to support > the family. My mother and father met years before they met when my > paternal grandfather drove the wagon full of the wealth of his truck farm > into South River and bartered veggies, milk, eggs and chickens for hooch. > My grandfather had blessings from the Church. He supplied the priests and > nuns with wines, beer and whiskey. > This, Tom, is why so many people in the US today find the topic engaging. Many, many, many, of us residing here today have the same very personal connection as do you. Yet, Prohibition is far enough ago, but still closely felt, that a unique perspective is possible. Liquor laws are local, but under a broad federal set of laws. If you have ever been involved in selling the stuff, it is fairly astonishing how much the laws differ. Over time, as with so many aspects of our culture, there is a homogenization of those laws. In some states, such as here in Arizona, the Liquor lobby is very powerful and has carefully crafted the laws. In others, such as Utah, the Church has reigned supreme. I remember visiting Iowa when I was 18 and being able to purchase beer, wine, and hard liquor by the drink. Package was also available but only in State run stores. Stepped over the river into Nebraska and it was necessary to be 19. Step over the other river to Illinois and it was really odd. 18 for 3.2% beer. Some bars were exclusively this. 19 for beer and wine. 21 for hard liquor. Three states with completely different laws all the way into the 1970's. Relating this film to current prohibition of pot is clearly something that the film maker knew would occur. He is more thoughtful and subtle on the matter than some, including our censorious editor. No need to shove it down throats. No need to tell you what to believe, as some would demand like a good little hatchet carrying crazy-ass defender of the faith. Okrent, and I believe Burns, want to first make clear what events is our history helped shape the fine kettle of fish we find ourselves. My personal opinion is that as we saw a general conservatism grow in our country that coincides with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. We saw both a movement by states to raise the drinking age universally to 21 at the same time we saw the movement to legalize cannibis squelched. Larger cultural tectonic shifts were occurring. I believe that in the late 1970's, we were very close legalizing, not decriminalizing, pot. Three times in the last 15 or so years the voters of Arizona have voted to legalize medical use of marijuana. Three times the elected leaders in our state have fought tooth and nail to prevent implementation of the law. Tom, they are, in their own minds, doing it for our own good just as the 19th century Anglo leaders did. Ken Burns doesn't see it as his duty to point this out. His mission is to accurately and interestingly tell the story. After viewing 2/3's of it, I think he has succeeded.
