Cheap Baseball - A Film by Ken Burns (DVD) (Ken Burns) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Baseball - A Film by Ken Burns

A moving history of the National Pastime
I remember watching this on television when it first aired in 1994. I've since purchased the collection on VHS and have watched it once almost every year since. <
> <
>Ken Burns weaves a wonderful tapestry of nostalgia, emotion, photographs, newsreels and personal reflections into the history of 20th-Century America through the lens of baseball. The American Pastime mirrors the social changes of our country - good and bad - and Burns demonstrates this throughout. <
> <
>Burns probably needs to be forgiven for his 'obsession' with Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson. While both figures are dominant in the broadcasts, the stories are indeed moving and I remember shedding several tears during the original telecast during these sequences. The New York and Boston teams are emphasized - which is fine; it would be impossible to encapsulate all of the rich history of baseball on just nine tapes or discs. Although a strong Cardinals fan, I didn't feel 'slighted.' Ken Burns is from the East Coast, anyway, so it's entirely understandable that his historical emphasis would reflect this. <
> <
>To me, the highlights are the rare newsreel footage of both Ruth and Robinson, the priceless reflections from Buck O'Neil, the perspectives from Dan Okrent, the 'Black Sox' Scandal, and the simultaneous interweaving of the Negro Leagues with the Major Leagues. Burns has a tendency to make political points (at the expense of improving the production) in subtle and overt ways. The only color footage shown in the production prior to the 1960's is that of the Negro Leagues and Ladies' Professional Leagues. I can't believe that that wasn't deliberate - I'm sure that Burns had access to historic color footage of the Major Leagues, but chose not to incorporate it. <
> <
>Overall, however, this set is a wonderful collection for the baseball fan of all ages - very intelligent and very moving. <
>

---

America's Documentarian Tackles The National Pastime
I see lots of reviews here curmudgeonly dissing Ken Burns "Baseball" for what it is NOT rather than what it is. For a baseball fan who doesn't mind the film's devotion to teams of New York it's a slice of heaven. <
> <
>It's futile to condense 18 hours of screentime into a few paragraphs, but it's worthwhile to note a few things I feel are wonderful about the film. <
> <
>The entire opening "inning" (the film is divided into 9 segments of 2 hours each) is devoted to the origins of the game - both as a game, then as a game played for money. The widely held misconception that Abner Doubleday "invented" baseball is taken apart immediately. <
> <
>Burns spends a lot of time documenting the historical and social context of where America was as a country at the same time events were occurring on the diamond. In that way he presents the perspective that baseball's single greatest moment was the day Jackie Robinson walked onto Ebbett's Field with "Dodgers" across his chest. It's useful for us as people to not only appreciate the baseball achievements of Jackie Robinson and, later, players such as Willie Mays and Hank Aaron, but also to acknowledge the widespread racism and outright barriers they had to overcome that their white counterparts didn't even have to consider. <
> <
>He similarly contrasts virtuous players with non-virtuous ones. In inning two the film triumphantly reports the victory of mild-mannered Honus Wagner's Pirates over hated Ty Cobb's Tigers. <
> <
>It's a little disconcerting how little time is allocated to recent years - most "innings" cover a decade, but the most recent 24 years of baseball (1970-1994) are covered in a single disc. Since that is the time most of us are most familiar with it's easy to feel a little slighted. <
> <
>If you think baseball is just "some game" this film is clearly not aimed at you. But if you love to talk about baseball and to hear stories of towering home runs and crafty pitchers - "Baseball" is like a long love poem to the game.

---

Biased, and Wonderful. Let's see Volume 10
Ken Burns' Baseball is a great bit of storytelling, and basically appears factual as far as I can tell. Sometimes, however, certain facts are simply presented in such a way as to accentuate one point of view or another. Bias is natural in any documentary; and if one is to "blame" Ken Burns for elevating certain topics far above the others, one has to admit that he could not have chosen more interesting topics with which to work: Babe Ruth; Negro Leagues; Jackie Robinson; and to some extent, Manager/Player dealings and labor disputes. <
> <
>Through all of the socio/political context and sweeping national impact associated with the events, my personal favorite moments are the stories and anecdotes interspersed throughout. I would think anyone who loves baseball would say the same. Cobb and his demons. The Admiration of Christy Mathewson. A slovenly Grover Cleveland Alexander shutting down the Yankees in the '26 series. Walter Johnson's pennant and world series, at long last. Paige, Gibson (Nobody beats Satchel...). Eddie Gaddel. Costas' romantic take on Mays' 1951 catch (It had never been seen before....). Vin Scully's description of 1955 Brooklyn post-series pandemonium. Stengal, Berra. The Mets' early futility (Ashburn, Yo La Tengo!). The individual stories are told well, and are given good flavor. John Chancellor is perfect. There is some real emotion in the story-telling. <
> <
>As to the New York bias that many reviewers have noted, especially with the Yankees, I have to say I really didn't notice it except for the 50's volume. And in that instance, it's only reasonable (12 pennants for the Yanks between '49 and '62?). Virtually no mention of the Yanks in the first 3 volumes. In the 20's, it seems to be common consensus that Ruth "saved baseball" from the Black SOX scandal; coupled with his being the most colorful and famous character in baseball history, it seems logical to make Ruth a focal point. As to the 30's - am I the only one that noticed an undermining of the Joe McCarthy '36-'39 Yankee championship teams? Aside from sections on Lou Gehrig's tragic retirement, and Dimaggio's rookie year, there wasn't much emphasis on those Yankee teams. In the 40's, virtually the only Yankee reference that I could garner was to Dimaggio's hitting streak. 50's, all Yankees. 60's, some noteworthy allusions to the '60-'64 pennant winners and home run chase of '61. Finally, in the '70's, an all-too-brief mention of the '76-'78 teams. Considering that this is a team that has won 26 world championships, I would say Burns spent just the right amount of time. <
> <
>As to Robinson and the integration of baseball, I would say Burns was nearly perfect in his storytelling. From early on in the series, Burns told the respective, seemingly unrelated stories of Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey. Then in the 40's their respective stories converged, and baseball truly became "The National Pastime." My one complaint is that Burns canonized Rickey, and presented him as a man with virtually no faults. Rickey had as many detractors as he had supporters, and it would have been more appropriate to show both sides of that story. The story of Robinson himself I cannot find fault with, except that as other have noted, perhaps some of the other Dodgers' contributions might have been overlooked. The most poignant moment in the entire series came for me in the 40's, with the tragedy of Josh Gibson's death immediately prefacing the coming of Robinson to the Dodgers. The way it is presented is filled with emotion - abject sadness followed by catharsis; it makes Robinson's victory that much more gratifying to watch, notwithstanding what he went through once he got to the majors. <
> <
>I do have several criticisms of certain things left out, and likewise certain aspects that Burns, as I see it, spent too much time on. For one, the history of the "Reserve Clause" among the Owners, which bound a player to one team; and the labor disputes between the Owners and Players. Burns puts the players in the sympathetic light throughout; and for someone relatively young like myself that can only ever remember players being millionaires, it's difficult to have pity for them. The late 60's / early 70's plight of Curt Flood, Marvin Miller, etc, is therefore quite devoid of meaning for me. And yes the implications of the reserve clause were terrible, but haven't we gone from one extreme to the other? Don't we long for the days when a player would be dedicated to one team for his entire career? At a point when Alex Rodriguez' $25 million salary necessitates my $100+ Yankee ticket, the reserve clause isn't looking so bad. <
> <
>On the other hand, as reviewers have noted, some teams/players were not given their due respect. I would say the '06-08 Cubs are fairly represented; however, the '10-'13 Athletics of the $100,000 infield, Chief Bender and Eddie Plank are only briefly mentioned; likewise the '29-'31 teams of Simmons, Foxx and Grove are glossed over. Not enough time spent on the early '30's Cards; or the early-mid '40's cards that won 3 championships; or the mid-60's Cards of Bob Gibson. Ken Burns, not a Cardinal fan. And how about the man that is still third on the all-time hit list, Stan the Man? He warrants a BRIEF mention, in the 60's no less, at the end of his illustrious career; although he gets a nice pat on the back from conservative columnist George Will, but that hardly seems to put things right. And what of the '68 Tigers of Denny McLain? Not even a passing mention. <
> <
>Ken Burns does many things right though. He gets the right group of people together, just the right combination of journalists, poets, historians, and former players. If it were up to me, Burns could have just put a camera on Buck O'Neil for 20+ hours. His stories and commentary are a highlight among highlights. <
> <
>One final comment - Burns ought to put together a 10th inning for '94-Present. 1994 hardly seems a befitting year to end, being the year of the dreadful strike! Think of all of the exciting/interesting events since the making of this series: the strike itself; recovering from the strike; Cleveland teams of the mid-late '90's; Yankee Dynasty of '96-'01; home run race of '98 between McGuire and Sosa; Bonds in '01; Wild Card's impact on the game; 2001, the most exciting world series in history bar none; Steroid scandals rocking the sport; and the Red Sox of 2004! If that last one doesn't warrant another 2+ hour volume, I don't know what does. I hope he puts it together.