Ken Burns' 10th Inning (1 Viewer)

[Eephus]

I watched it and I guess I enjoyed it overall but I don't know how much of that is out of obligation as a fan. I probably should have shut it off midway through Jose Feliciano's (the singer not the Mets pitcher) rendition of the Star Spangled Banner but I let myself get sucked in.

I think Burns' style is better suited to chronicling events from the more distant past. His languid pacing doesn't work as well with modern video clips than it did with Civil War photographs. There's also very little in terms of new information offered for anyone who followed the game over the past 20 years. I suppose it would be a good history lesson for my son but he's shown little interest in the sport, which highlights another weakness in the film. It's hard to argue that baseball is somehow still a microcosm of American society, no matter how hard Burns and his talking heads try to make it one. For me anyhow, the game still matters but the stuff surrounding it doesn't. And in trying to compress the last 20 years into four hours, you really have to cover the off-field stuff more than the game.

There's a lot of Joe Torre and Tom Boswell, no Gerald Early or Doris Kearns Goodwin so we'll call that a tie. I expect an overdose of Red Sox in the final chapter. It's my duty as a Giants fan to be one of the biggest Barry Bonds supporters/apologists on this board but he's no Joshua Chamberlain or Louis Armstrong if you're trying to bookend a documentary.

 

[Raider Nation]

I liked it a lot. The stories of the kids in the Dominican Republic, and the McGwire/Sosa home run chase were interesting.

Looking forward to part 2.

 

[Gadzooks]

I watched it and I guess I enjoyed it overall but I don't know how much of that is out of obligation as a fan. I probably should have shut it off midway through Jose Feliciano's (the singer not the Mets pitcher) rendition of the Star Spangled Banner but I let myself get sucked in.

I think Burns' style is better suited to chronicling events from the more distant past. His languid pacing doesn't work as well with modern video clips than it did with Civil War photographs. There's also very little in terms of new information offered for anyone who followed the game over the past 20 years. I suppose it would be a good history lesson for my son but he's shown little interest in the sport, which highlights another weakness in the film. It's hard to argue that baseball is somehow still a microcosm of American society, no matter how hard Burns and his talking heads try to make it one. For me anyhow, the game still matters but the stuff surrounding it doesn't. And in trying to compress the last 20 years into four hours, you really have to cover the off-field stuff more than the game.

There's a lot of Joe Torre and Tom Boswell, no Gerald Early or Doris Kearns Goodwin so we'll call that a tie. I expect an overdose of Red Sox in the final chapter. It's my duty as a Giants fan to be one of the biggest Barry Bonds supporters/apologists on this board but he's no Joshua Chamberlain or Louis Armstrong if you're trying to bookend a documentary.

Part 2 was disappointing. Burns' hard-on for the Sox was evident throughout. Was Pujols even mentioned once? How can there be a documentary about the last 15 years of baseball and not mention the player (Pujols) who is probably the greatest of his generation? And why did I have to hear multiple stories about Mike Barnicle and his family's dedication to the Sox? And Doris Kearns Goodwin, that's one dude I wish I never hear from again. I think Burns looked at the last 15 years as the Good (Sox) the Bad (steroids) and the Japanese hitting machine (Ichiro) 2 other things that I was surprised were missing regarding the part about 9/11 and baseball: that first Mets game after 9/11 when Piazza hit the homer to win it and Bush throwing out the first pitch at Game 3 of the World Series in Yankee stadium. I'm not from NY nor am I a fan of either the Mets or Yankees, but those are the first 2 things I think of when I think about how baseball relates to 9/11.

 

[Eephus]

Agree on Bush and Pujols. GWB's pitch was one of the highlights of his presidency. Pujols should have been at least been mentioned in the segment.

Burns made up for the absence of Goodwin and Early yesterday by featuring them often in part two. Goodwin was particularly pompous. Overall though, I though this part was structured better that the first. The positive coda after the steroid segment was expected but seemed forced.

 

[Zigg]

Liked the Ichiro bit. Amazing that he's a natural righty.

 

[Eephus]

Liked the Ichiro bit. Amazing that he's a natural righty.

Agree. He's one of the few current ballplayers with a mystique about him.

 

[Raider Nation]

:chills:

I think I actually got a chubby watching the recap of the '96 WS featuring Torre. Wonderful presentation.

 

[SofaKings]

It was decent tv but not groundbreaking. I was happy to see them portray Barry Bonds in such a negative light. Made my day.

 

[JZilla]

It was fine. We're all super impressed by the Yanks and Sawx, but I think they could have trimmed the fat and made it one two-hour episode.

 

[Eephus]

It was decent tv but not groundbreaking. I was happy to see them portray Barry Bonds in such a negative light. Made my day.

Our opinions may be a case of the eyes of the respective beholders but I thought the portrayal of Bonds was relatively nuanced. Burns accepted at face value the claims that Bonds didn't juice until after the 98 HR chase. It also rationalized some of his anti-social behavior with things that happened to his dad. I don't think he was made out to be the villain.What was missing and what's always missing is a sense of who Bonds is. He was the central figure in the film. He opened both parts and would have closed the second (if not for the tacked on feel good ending). But there weren't any revelations to be had, due in part to lack of access to Bonds or his inner circle. I'm sure Bonds prefers it this way, to remain a set of contradictions to the public. In his own way, he's a fascinating and totally uninteresting figure.

 

[SofaKings]

It was decent tv but not groundbreaking. I was happy to see them portray Barry Bonds in such a negative light. Made my day.

Our opinions may be a case of the eyes of the respective beholders but I thought the portrayal of Bonds was relatively nuanced. Burns accepted at face value the claims that Bonds didn't juice until after the 98 HR chase. It also rationalized some of his anti-social behavior with things that happened to his dad. I don't think he was made out to be the villain.What was missing and what's always missing is a sense of who Bonds is. He was the central figure in the film. He opened both parts and would have closed the second (if not for the tacked on feel good ending). But there weren't any revelations to be had, due in part to lack of access to Bonds or his inner circle. I'm sure Bonds prefers it this way, to remain a set of contradictions to the public. In his own way, he's a fascinating and totally uninteresting figure.

He and his attorneys know better than to give the public access.

 

[Raider Nation]

Good episode on PBS tonight.

Things I learned:

Bob Costas has always been pompous.

Tim Raines used to slide head-first because he didn't want to break the viles of coke in his back pocket.