The Civil War (1990)

Director: Ken Burns

History can be just as compelling as any subject, fact or fiction. Besides the great storytelling that can be inherent in history, there is the bonus of knowing that the story you're watching has certainly happened therefore you can never accuse a story about history of being "unrealistic". When we see the many Civil War anecdotes that Ken Burns tells us during this almost 11 hour long documentary minseries, we don't question their authenticity, we just take in the emotions and ideas expressed through those stories. It makes those stories that much more effective. This expansive and ambitious documentary series is great accomplishment just on the basis of of its scope. We get the history of a grand event that has had a large impact on the world today, and multiple smaller stories that take us into the real America during the Civil War. It's an extensively researched and detailed series that took five years to finish, one year longer than the Civil War itself.

Burns' trademark classical documentary style that has been copied so much now is in full use, but despite the fact that we've seen so much of this "conventional" style in the 20 years after this film, the style rarely inhibits the film. Getting actors to recite letters, or using slow motion zooms on photographs accomplish the goals of Burns. He gets you into the world and connects you emotionally to the soldiers, the politicians, and ordinary people involved through the melancholic and humorous stories told by either the actors or talking head historians (very few appearances by them I must add). The grand scope and long length of the film enable Burns to not just tell the whole story event-by-event of the Civil War from start to finish, but also take many digressions along the way by looking at issues like women in the war, sanitation issues, and pardons for deserters. Not every digression is interesting though, and if I could change one thing it would be to add more about the political issues going on during the war rather than soldier life. Though the film can once in a while seem like a dull moving textbook, we also get somethings that textbooks overlook. These are the smaller stories, the moments and unimportant individuals who lived during this enormous conflict that created, as Abraham Lincoln called it, a new birth of freedom.

Grade: B+

Downton Abbey: Season Two (2012)

Creator: Julian Fellowes

 The first season of Downton Abbey was filled with strong characters and a pretty compelling narrative for almost each of them. While the second season features many of the same strong characters, the narratives were not as compelling and much more silly. The believability of the plot decreased heavily as Julian Fellowes seems to dig deeper and deeper into the box of generic soap opera stories. Many of the plots were just contrived drama that weren't all that compelling, though at the same time the characters to make them watchable.

One of the more contrived and silly stories was the deformed Titanic survivor whose storyline was so unbelievable and out-of-place I wondered why in the world Fellowes chose to include it. On the other end, the romance between Lady Sybil and Branson was of similar quality to the character arcs in the first season, much more compelling and emotional while also shining a light on the changing times of the setting. Then there's one of the best parts of the show, which is just watching all the characters work together and interact. The overall tapestry of the house and the town they live in expanded during this second season and it helped in making the world of Downton Abbey a place you want to be a part of, even despite the sometimes unbelievable story-lines.

Grade: B-

Downton Abbey: Season One (2011)

Creator: Julian Fellowes

I was never a fan of stories of the period pieces about the British class system, so any enjoyment I get from this show is not because I adore the genre. The first season of Downton Abbey is a surprisingly intricate, nuanced, and well-written drama about love, inheritance, and class. The themes of the show are certainly not original, neither are the character types. It's not one of those shows that will sound all that appealing to most people who are not already fans of English literature. But the show has these characters that are so compelling, and they are all acted in such a way that transcends any and all the cliche's associated with those characters.

It is remarkable how the characters and their relationships with each other are so nuanced even though on paper the relationships would be so standard and conventional. The biggest reason the show stands out to me is the relationship between the upstairs royalty and the downstairs servants. Each have their own culture, but when those cultures meet is when the show does great work. All of it helps in telling a story that is also about the culture these characters live in, one that is changing in terms of family roles, gender relations, and also class relations. The show doesn't seem to criticize the class system, but it recognizes the changing perception and tries to capture the change in motion. It is a show that oddly respects the class system while not mourning it when it is clear that tradition is changing. The show is not at all as sophisticated and well-written as Mad Men, but it really is the British Mad Men of the 1910's.

Grade: B+