Rise & Fall Of Jack Johnson

[Cali]

I don't have a copy of the film, but I don't remember the "profit" element being there.  Furthermore, I have read a text of the Mann Act and it makes no reference to profit.  If you can direct me to text which talks about profit I would appreciate it.

The Mann Act pertains to "white slavery", which is defined "as a 19th century term for a form of slavery involving the sexual abuse of women held as captives and forced into prostitution".

[AllenLowe]

I think we're missing the point on Jackson's delivery, which was likely intended as a legitimately thetarical rendering of Johnson's words -

[Christiern]

I think we're missing the point on Jackson's delivery, which was likely intended as a legitimately thetarical rendering of Johnson's words -

Well, Allan, thetarical B-) or not, I don't see a match between the delivery and the writing. It would not be odd to find that Burns has a preconceived notion of how black people should sound.

Years ago, when I was a dj on WHAT, in Philly, I was on the all-white, all-jazz FM air staff when the newscaster on our all-black, all-r&b&gospel AM station became ill. The woman who owned the station called me into her office and asked, "Can you speak like them?"

[doubleM]

....and you said.....??

[Christiern]

I asked her what "they" sounded like. She got the message.

[AllenLowe]

it's like that line in the Sunshine Boys, where the guy is talking about the old minstrel days; he says "I did black when nobody was doing black - and when I did black, you could understand the words"

[AllenLowe]

On the other hand this was most likely Jackson's own choice -

[BERIGAN]

You should also consider the fact that we are talking about the turn of the century--people, regardless of color, spoke differently then. Yes, Johnson came from a humble background, but poverty does not always translate into the kind of delivery Jackson gave it. Besides, Jackson was around educated whites long enough for it to have shaped the way he spoke. You have but to listen to his words articulate statements to realize that he had open ears. I hope it does not bother you that all black people don't sound like Steppin Fetchit. What Jackson did here, IMO, is perpetuate a stereotype.

You know, I tried my level best to be nice to you on this thread, pointed out to you that it was a Big time movie star doing Johnson's voice,(Something you clearly didn't know) a major star raised in the south no less, and you say you hope it doesn't bother me that all blacks don't sound like Steppin Fetchit. So please understand, this comes from my heart....FUCK YOU!!!

I am sure you have some vendetta againt Ken Burns since he didn't think enough of you to put you in his documentary, but to think that this very clearly liberal man wants to somehow denigrate blacks, when as pointed out before just about every major documentary he has made in the last 10+ years(Civil War, Baseball, Jazz, Now Johnson) has delt with the descrimination blacks have suffered, just shows how very petty you are these days.

[connoisseur series500]

Going overboard, Beri.

I think Chris criticisms of Burns' documentaries are quite valid.

I consider Bursn to be highly talented if singleminded. Chris merely points out ways in which they could have improved on the presentation. I happen to agree with him. I don't care for the use of Marsalis compositions; and I don't think it appropriate that Crouch provides such a prominent scholarly voice. There are a lot of boxing experts who could have been consulted.

I also think the series, though very enjoyable, leans heavily towards a particular point of view. I see little balance there.

[Christiern]

You know, I tried my level best to be nice to you on this thread, pointed out to you that it was a Big time movie star doing Johnson's voice,(Something you clearly didn't know) a major star raised in the south no less, and you say you hope it doesn't bother me that all blacks don't sound like Steppin Fetchit. So please understand, this comes from my heart....FUCK YOU!!! 

I am sure you have some vendetta againt Ken Burns since he didn't think enough of you to put you in his documentary, but to think that this very clearly liberal man wants to somehow denigrate blacks, when as pointed out before just about every major documentary he has made in the last 10+ years(Civil War, Baseball, Jazz, Now Johnson) has delt (sic)with the descrimination (sic)blacks have suffered, just shows how very petty you are these days.

• Of course I know who Samuel L. Jackson is, and that he was the voice of Johnson (I can read credits). That's not the point, it really does not matter who the narrator is, I still think he is off track here. Well, perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps Johnson had a command of the English language, but only when it came to writing it--does not sound reasonable to me.
  
  No, I have no "vendetta against Ken Burns" because he did not call upon me to participate in his fantasy on camera. It's bad enough that I helped him with photos (which he then used deceptively). I also don't believe that he has any desire to denigrate blacks, those are your words. I do think that he simply is a victim of the old American tendency to stereotype. Not all liberals are erudite, some are ignorant when it comes to knowledge of people who have a different look. I sometimes have a feeling--based on many of your past posts--that you might be able to identify with that. If I am wrong about that, I apologize.
  
  As for what is in your heart, I'd work on that if I was you--but it does explain where you're coming from.
  

[AllenLowe]

DING

ROUND TWO

[Adam]

I think the criticisms of Ken Burns "style" are quite valid. Basically, he found a method of presentation and a set of experts back in The Civil War, and he sticks with them every time, even though they don't work for most of his shows since then. They worked splendidly for The Civil War, IMHO.

When watching Baseball, I didn't care what Doris Kearns Goodwin or Stephen Jay Gould had to say (beyond perhaps one nice anecdote about seeing a game somewhere. And Gould has his statistical study about hitting .400) There weren't enough baseball players in Baseball, not enough musicians in Jazz, and it sounds like not enough boxers in Jack Johnson, Burns is loyal to his experts and advisors, but to the point where he shortchanges the possibilities of his topic.

I also think there are better voices on "Race in America" who could be repeated in show after show besides Stanley Crouch. But Burns might easily be seeing this all, essentially, as one long series on race, with each shorter show being a different tangent or episode. And in a show it is important to have some regular faces & voices that the audience gets to know and like. I think that's why he keeps turning to the same intereviewees. Also, when he knows they are "good TV," he'll go back to them. That's what I've done. But they need to be experts on the topic. But, I'm working on my third show with archaeologist Shimon Gibson, for example.

[Christiern]

Going back to the same sources/people is an old thing in Hollywood. It has improved in recent years, but there was a time when producers found one or two black actors and seemed to think that was it. I recall when Cicely Tyson was getting far more roles than her talent deserved, and there have been numerous others like that. I guess it's a carry-over from the days when typecasting locked artists into a narrow character category from which there often was no escape. My experience with the Burns people, brief though it was, showed me that he really is not interested in historical accuracy--if he has footage that appeals to him, but doesn't relate to the subject at hand, he will stretch the truth to make it fit in.

As far as I can see, the only thing that makes a Burns "documentary" (using the term very loosely) worthwhile watching is that he always gets his hands on interesting footage and stills. It's really a shame because an honest documentary, film maker, given the budget and resources available to Florentine (Burns's company), could produce extraordinary results.

[AllenLowe]

Just finished watching part one last night - wanted to mention that that's the way Samuel Jackson talks - he wasn't adding much in the way of inflection -

Edited January 21, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Christiern]

Then he probably was the wrong choice, IMHO.