Videos: Ken Burns' "Frank Lloyd Wright"

[DavidC]

Ken Burns - Frank Lloyd Wright - (Part 1 of 2) - 1998 - (1:22:17)

Ken Burns - Frank Lloyd Wright - (Part 2 of 2) - 1998 - (1:13:49)


David

[jay]

I'm a Ken Burns' fan....for the most part.... But a 2.5 hour documentary that gives less than 5 minutes to all Usonian (and post-war residential) houses is a pretty lame omission.

[Roderick Grant]

When this came out in 1998, it got mixed reviews from Conservancy members, predominantly negative or guardedly in favor. There were no raves. That year we met in Chicago. Burns dropped by while we were visiting the Rookery Building for a brief talk and was very defensive about his effort. He left abruptly without waiting for feedback. The consensus was that Murray Grigor's 1983 BBC film narrated by Anne Baxter (75 minutes compared to 2 hours, 36 minutes) was superior.

[DRN]

I’ve enjoyed much of Burns’ films as well, but not this one. Jay’s note about the uneven coverage of Wright’s career is a primary criticism, as is the lack of “talking heads” with direct connections to Wright (many of whom were still living during production) that were actually presented. For Burns to have literally had the archives at TWest open to him, the omission of or scant coverage of the POVs of former apprentices is stunning.

That talking heads were featured repeatedly whose only connection to Wright was that they were in the architectural profession seemed a waste. I respect Maya Lin and Robert AM Stern and their work, but I fail to see their relevance over former apprentices and clients.

[Roderick Grant]

Burns relies too much on expertise from famous talking heads. Philip Johnson was witty and provocative, but he had little of substance to offer. Obviously Burns didn't know what a hot mess "Many Masks" was - nor did anyone else on his crew - or he wouldn't have had him on, either. On the other hand, he interviewed the Reisleys for two hours, but used none of it.

It all adds up to the unavoidable fact that Burns knew nothing about architecture and relied on others to fill him in. Which makes one wonder how much he knew about the Civil War, baseball or jazz.

[DavidC]

I'd have to agree. The focus on 'star power' left me feeling empty when seeing this way back when. In a documentary such as this, the writer - in this case Geoffery C. Ward - chose to focus more of his attention on the biographical aspects of Wright, as opposed to the created architecture. Starting from that perspective (majority biographical), my guess would be that Burns - having found fame after the Civil War series - put on the screen those who he felt would bring in the largest audience.

I've found Burns' work to be a mixed bag, over the years.


David

[Tim]

Documentaries are misnamed. Very few documentaries just "document" a topic or subject like a good newspaper article might. Documentaries are entertainment first, information second.

That said, Ken B needed to create something watchable first, thus the focus on FLW's more interesting aspects (there were many!).

Narrowly speaking, this was about FLW the person. When looking at his life, Usonians jump out less.

[Roderick Grant]

Actually, that was exactly what Burns said at the Rookery: His goal was to focus on Wright's personal life rather than on the architecture. Other than Eric Wright, the talking heads were people who had limited knowledge of architecture.

When Brendan Gill was named architecture critic of The New Yorker, Edgar Kaufmann, Jr. wrote to the editor: "You have just hired the Louella O. Parsons of architecture criticism."