Customer Reviews
Ken Burns Does History Well 
2008-05-29
The DVD was informative and engaging. Burns utilizes the most compelling narrators and resources to substatiate his effort. His history becomes dramatic, multi-faceted, and memorable.
Thomas Jefferson 2008-03-29
Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence. As president, he made the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon and sent Lewis and Clark to open the west. They left St. Louis and headed up the Missouri River. They took on an interpreter named Charbonneau and his Indian wife, Sacagawea. They reached the Columbia River and sailed to the Pacific Ocean in a three year journey. Thomas Jefferson was a scientist and a product of the Enlightenment.
an inspiring film 2007-09-09
As with most of Ken Burns' projects, I really enjoyed this film. I've noticed some reviewers faulting it as incomplete in some respects, and although I'm no expert on the subject, I don't doubt that this is not the whole story. I do think the film does a good job of providing insight into the life and thinking of a truly amazing man, and I doubt whether it would be possible to capture on film all that we know about Jefferson from existing literature, even if we were talking about a multi-volume DVD set. In my opinion this film excels in its potential to help spark an interest among viewers about the man and his times. I wouldn't be surprised if this film will lead many to dig deeper, picking up a book or two and learning more. Personally, I was amazed that there is so much information included in this single DVD. Well worth the time spent viewing, more than once.
"Thomas Jefferson still lives." 
2007-07-18
"The principle of society with us is the equal rights of all. Nobody shall be above you nor you above anybody." Such words of Jefferson's are the reason why John Adams last words (on July 4, 1826), "Jefferson still lives," were still correct notwithstanding that Jefferson had passed away unbeknownst to the Adams household but hours before. Jefferson biographer Joseph Ellis is quoted herein: "Part of Jefferson's genius was to articulate at a sufficiently abstract level these principles, these truths that we all want to believe in" notwithstanding "that these truths, at some level, are unattainable and at another level mutually exclusive. Perfect Freedom does not lead to perfect equality, usually leads to inequality."
"He was a statesman," a "reluctant politician." "He was a farmer," and "a lover of fine wine" the program informs us multiple times. Jefferson characterized himself as "a scientist first, a farmer second, a statesman reluctantly." But of this connoisseur of fine imported wines, the program later informs us of this: "often he diluted his wine with water." Sounds like the epitome of the paradox that is Jefferson. Consider the following: For his inauguration Jefferson "wore a plain suit and shoes that tied because he considered buckles undemocratic." Yet Jefferson excused the terror of the French Revolution in the spirit that ends exonerated undesirable means to various individuals.
And then there's Jefferson's behavior relating to the enslavement of people with darker skin than his; his calls for emancipation, for proposals on the issue while neglecting to take much if any personal action...........and if the Hemmings business is true (more about this qualifier in a second) makes a complete mockery of all his theorizing, proposals, and puts a black eye (pun intended) on his championing of equality for all. Evidence has come to light since this program was made showing a DNA link between some of the descendants of Sally Hemmings and the Jefferson family. A committee appointed by The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which runs Monticello concluded "it is very unlikely that any Jefferson other than Thomas Jefferson was the father of [Hemmings's six] children." If he did take advantage of this woman, perhaps over many years, and not then free her in his will that's despicable is it not? This program, however, only devotes 6 minutes to this whole Hemmings matter; a segment which concludes with these words by historian John Hope Franklin (whose ancestors might have been slaves themselves): "It doesn't really matter whether he slept with her or not." How could it not matter as it would make a mockery of almost everything Jefferson ever said about slavery. ("Most likely" is not enough for me, however. Even if the odds and conjecture suggest otherwise, perhaps the DNA in some---but interestingly, not in all---of Hemming's descendants came from Jefferson's brother or nephews and this is why these slaves were freed by Jefferson. After all, why did Jefferson free all 4 of Sally Hemmings's surviving children, but not Sally herself upon Jefferson's death?)
In addition, in this almost 3 hour program on the man who so expanded the size of the United States almost no mention is made of American Indians; save such fare as this: "But despite his lifelong interest in native culture, Jefferson believed that white settlement was more important and encouraged the removal of nearly all the Eastern Indians from their homelands to the West." How about simply omitting "But despite his lifelong interest in native culture."
Likewise the supposition that "events overseas, along with his own stubbornness, insured that his second term would be marked by few successes" is a statement that excuses too much. "Events overseas" hardly engender American failure. (The great American presidents, almost without exception, have achieved the moniker "Great" by rising to the challenge of extraordinary developments, often overseas.) Jefferson's self-imposed embargo on the export of all American goods is, however, characterized honestly: "it was a disaster," this program informs us; besides criticizing Jefferson for having merchantmen ordered arrested and their ships searched without warrants. Maybe this is why Jefferson's self-written gravestone pointedly omits his executive experience (as well as his prior executive experience: "In 1779 Jefferson was selected war governor of Virginia. His tenure soon proved a nightmare.")
"It would take many years before the American people knew that Jefferson had written the most important document in their history." Imagine for a moment if we never did. But thank God Jefferson jumped at the opportunity to secure the expansive Louisiana Territory; a move that justifies Jefferson's inclusion at Mount Rushmore even if that was the only thing we knew about this complicated individual, who seemed to embody the human failings and creative genius that epitomize the grandness of life. Cheers
Overreaching psychoanalysis with very little hisorical substance 
2007-07-15
I recently checked out this DVD from the library as I am currently reading the six volume biography of Jefferson by Dumas Malone (I am currently well into the fifth volume) and thought this would provide some additional visual references. This film certainly seems to be in line with the recent trend in biography towards psychoanalysis, of which this film, in my opinion, vastly overreaches itself, and is barebones on real facts and history. While Jefferson is certainly not a straightforward individual to understand, I do not believe he is the enigma that this film claims him to be. Certainly Jefferson's statements and writings assert strongly ideological ideas that were not always in line with the actions of his political and personal life, but this is by no means a rare human quality, especially in politics. Indeed, had Jefferson been an uncompromising ideologue, such as congressman John Randolph - his rival in the democratic-republican party of the time, he would have been roundly criticized for being aloof from reality. Jefferson held strong guiding principles, but recognized that pragmatism and compromise would be required to avoid jeopardizing the long term success of his ideals and the American experiment.
I also believe this biography overreaches in its portrayal of Jefferson as a tragic figure. It is certainly true that Jefferson lost many close friends and relatives throughout his life, including his father at an early age, his wife when she was still very young, his closest friend, and five of his six children before his death, but this is not extraordinary given the time period, nor do I think a strong argument can be made that these events significantly influenced Jefferson's thoughts, republican ideals, or actions.
Ultimately, I believe that presently much of the analysis of Jefferson is inevitably biased by academics (who make up most of the analysts on this film and certainly a large portion of those who support PBS) current aversion to the classic liberalism (what we would today call libertarianism) and limited government that Jefferson espoused. Had Jefferson been an ardent supporter of Federalism, I believe he would have received much more favorable analysis by these same analysts, such as Alexander Hamilton receives today. While the criticism of Jefferson in this film is certainly valid, the bias is due to the omission of counterpoints this film avoids mentioning.
Even without considering these criticims, this film is so barebones in its presentation of real history that no one, regardless of their political persuasion, could hope to form a valid opinion of Jefferson based upon watching it. There is strong disconnect between the college level of psychoanalysis this film advances and the elementary school level of historical narrative it presents.
Profound. Complex. Eternal. Eloquent and Inspiring. 
2007-01-09
The complicated life of Thomas Jefferson is the subject of this excellent documentary by noted filmmaker Ken Burns. Using techniques that will seem comfortably familiar to viewers of other films by Burns, historians and writers (including Joseph Ellis, Daniel Boorstin, Garry Wills, and Gore Vidal) appear on camera to speak about Jefferson, a cast of actors read the words of Jefferson and others. The visuals include beautifully photographed shots of Jefferson's famed estate, Monticello, other locations where Jefferson lived and worked, and a vast number of period drawings and paintings. Jefferson, who was born into a prosperous Virginia family but lost his father when he was young, became a skilled lawyer despite his natural shyness. And the story of how he became a public figure and rose to prominence during the American Revolution is told intelligently. Commentators, including the noted African American historian John Hope Franklin, grapple with the peculiar inconsistencies of Jefferson's life. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence owned slaves, and some of what he wrote about race is both troubling and puzzling. This film (which covers Jefferson's entire life, including his two terms as the young country's president and his later years in Virginia) doesn't sidestep controversy but provides a balanced account of one of the most fascinating of all Americans.
--Robert J. McNamara
Aesthetically pleasing but factually skimpy TV biography of Jefferson 2005-08-15
This was an extremely pleasant television biography of our most complex president, and it certainly had a number of good things going for it. For instance, there are many, many wonderful shots of Monticiello in all kinds of weather, and this seemed to bring the viewer closer to Jefferson than many such examinations of his life do. And as in most of Ken Burns's undertakings, a number of eloquent scholars contributed their perspectives to the show. But the fact is that the show ends up passing over too many facts and aspects of Jefferson's life. By any standard, Jefferson is the most complex prominent American in our history. More has been written about Lincoln, and while there are aspects of his personality that baffle us, compared to Jefferson he is a model of transparency. So, I do not fault the documentary for leaving Jefferson a bit of a mystery. As Joseph Ellis remarks in it (repeating the central image of his admirable biography), if Jefferson were a statue, he would be a sphinx. I've read several biographies of Jefferson as well as at least a dozen or so books in which he features prominently, and the more I read about him, the perplexing aspects of his life and personality become more and not less baffling.
The documentary does a decent job of hitting the high points of Jefferson's life, though there is a definite tendency to skip over some aspects, perhaps because of time limitations. For instance, Jefferson was an absolutely awful vice president under Adams, and actively conspired to undermine his presidency, but no mention of this is made whatsoever in the series. Brief mention is made of his struggles with John Marshall, but it isn't pointed out that the struggle was whether there was going to be an independent judiciary (Jefferson wanted to be able to replace justices--even supreme court justices--pretty much at will). The point of an independent judiciary was to maintain a brake to public sentiment, other wise transitory popular opinion could create vast public mischief (think of the interment of Japanese American citizens during WW II and multiply it several times).
Also, the historical complexity of Jefferson's thought isn't even hinted at. Many of the most prominent Americans feel that Jefferson would have adjusted his thought under different historical circumstances (though one can reply to them that Jefferson has a strong utopian trend in his thought that renders much of what he envisioned as the ideal as profoundly unrealistic). For instance, Lincoln considered himself a Jeffersonian while not acceding either to Jefferson's agrarian ideal or his belief in a small federal government. Lincoln was a strong advocate of industrial development (he was a key figure in the building of the canals that made Chicago the key city in America's industrial and economic development in the 19th century) and in the government playing a major role in economic expansion. But he fully embraced the ideal of equality as the core idea of the American project. As the documentary points out, Jefferson embraces both the concept of equality and the idea of liberty, and did not seem willing to acknowledge that the two could be in conflict, whereas Lincoln's conception seemed to be promoting as much liberty as was compatible with insuring equality (at least in his matured thought). Or take Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, both who whom espoused the kind of popular democracy that Jefferson promoted and yet who thought that this could only be done through a strong central government that limited the grasp of trusts, robber barons, industrialists, or corporations (the terminology depending on what decade we are talking about). Woodrow Wilson explicitly argued that Jefferson would have espoused a strong federal government if he had lived long enough to see full blown industrialization and the rise of the modern corporation. Many of the Progressives argued much the same way, and it isn't an accident that it was in the New Deal that Jefferson's Memorial was authorized.
Much of Jefferson's public life was dealt with in fairly hit or miss fashion. For instance, there is good discussion of the writing of the Declaration of Independence, but the lack of detail of his presidency was stunning. Much better was the discussion of his private life, including the Sally Hemming controversy. The more I've read about the issue, the less certain I've become. We live in a scandal-driven time, and we lend credence to low conduct too easily. My own reading makes me very, very slightly inclined to believe that Jefferson was not the father of Hemming's children (we have no evidence from either of them, though one of Hemming's children claims she said on her death bed that he was), and the DNA evidence is less decisive and a good deal fuzzier than many commonly assume. The fact is that you can compile a very long list of supporting arguments on both side of the issue. But I think John Hope Franklin put it best: in the end it doesn't matter, because the more crucial point is that she was his property, and that was the more reprehensible fact. John Adams also disbelieved the accusation, but he also pointed out that with such a dreadful institution, such evils--whether rumored or actual--are inevitably going to arise.
I would definitely encourage anyone to see this documentary. If one has read no biographies of Jefferson, I would caution one to take the overall portrait with caution; if one is a seasoned student of Jefferson, one will delight in the host of visual images of Jefferson's world. If one wanted to go on to read more about Jefferson, I would recommend as a very good one-volume biography that of Joseph Ellis, which does a marvelous job of explaining why we continue to find Jefferson so fascinating, with the added attraction that Ellis was one of the major contributors to the series. The more ambitious could go on to consider Dumas Malone's exhaustive six-volume biography (which is not merely a great biography of Jefferson, but a marvelous portrait of the age) as well as Jefferson's NOTES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA and the Jefferson-Adams correspondence. A significant portion of the documentary focuses on the latter, and I heartily agree that it is the finest correspondence between public figures in American history. But it is more than that: it is one of the great political classics in American history, belonging to such works as Paine's COMMON SENSE, THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, Tocqueville, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
In the end, the faults of the documentary are probably most likely the result of the limited time allotted to the subject. Jefferson is simply too vast a subject to be encapsulated in three hours. Nonetheless, while this will hardly do as a complete portrait, it remains either a pleasing introduction or an enjoyable supplement.
Excellent documentary on one of our Founding Fathers 2005-05-20
Ken Burns gives us another masterpiece of documentaries. Through the descriptions of historians, we see the contradictions in Jefferson's life with his writings and ideals. Burns follows Jefferson's life in all the personal disappointments and achievements, and the paradoxes of Jefferson are also pointed out. Jefferson was a slaveowner even though he wrote that "all men were created equal." There is much information, but I wish there was a little more. The film is broken up into two chapters, each an hour and a half long. I think this film is a good introduction into Jefferson's life. You may want to read The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Modern Library Classics) to give you a more in-depth look at the mind of Jefferson. I recognized some letters that were read in this film from this book. I think this film is an perfect complement to this book, because it gives the historical and personal background to the letters as well as to the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's most amazing accomplishment.
I wish that Burns films were shown to me when I was in high school learning about U.S. History, unfortunately I was in high school some years before Burns had made his films. Burns has the innate talent of bringing history to life and giving it a personal touch with heart. This documentary is exemplary of his ability.
The Ken Burns PBS documentary of the great American enigma 2005-05-14
This 1996 two-part documentary by Ken Burns provides an introduction to the man who was the third President of the United States but did not feel the position was worth mentioning on his tombstone. When he was 33 years old Thomas Jefferson wrote one of the most famous and important lines in the history of the entire world in the Declaration of Independence and over the next half-century of his life accomplished enough to warrant being on the nickel, Mt. Rushmore, and, ironically given his ability to embrace contradictory positions in his life's work, the $2 bill.
Burns begins the documentary with an anecdote which is the 19th century equivalent of JFK's quip to a 1962 dinner for 49 Nobel laureates that it was "the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House-with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." But the primary focus is on the inherent paradoxes of the man who could write the Declaration of Independence but own slaves, write about their unpleasant body odor, and avoided emancipating them. The charges continue in kind: Jefferson denounced the idea of political parties yet founded the first one, denounced the moral bankruptcy of Europe but enjoyed the gilded Paris salons, deplored a centralized government and then became the chief executive of the nation and doubled its size by buying the Louisiana Purchase.
The thesis of this documentary appears right before Jefferson's name appears at the end of the introduction: "He remained a puzzle, even to those who thought they knew him best, embodied contradictions common to the country whose independence it fell to him to proclaim in words whose precise meaning Americans have debated ever since." The key point here is not just that Jefferson is an enigmatic figure but that his paradoxes are those written in the soul of the nation. It was not until Abraham Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg in November of 1863 that America finally accepted the proposition that "all men are created equal," but it was Jefferson who wrote the proposition. The gap between his vision and his actual achievement as a human being is arguably a defining element of the American spirit.
Do I think that Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemmings? Yes, I do; the fact that she turned out to be the half-sister of his late wife Martha, along with his promise to Martha on her deathbed that he would never remarry, seems a compelling rationale to explain his behavior, although I would never confuse seeking physical comfort with love. Why did Jefferson never free his slaves? That is the question that will never be known for sure (there is at least enough DNA evidence to show that the Hemmings children were fathered by a Jefferson, whether Thomas or one of his relatives, perhaps his brother Randolph). My best guess at this point would be that he was afraid of what would happen to his slaves if they were freed and sent off into the world out of the reach of his protection. That his economic problems were such that the slaves were sold off after his death is but another contradiction in the long line of those that defined his life.
By now we are as familiar with the method of a Ken Burns documentary the same way we know the conventions of a situation comedy, romance novel, or rock 'n' roll song. The camera studies historic engravings and paintings before shifting to contemporary film taken in all four seasons of Jefferson's Monticello home and other key places from his life. The documentary was written by Geoffrey C. Ward and Jefferson's words are spoken by actor Sam Waterston with Ossie Davis providing the narration. Blythe Danner does the voice of Martha Jefferson, whom she played in the film version of the musical "1776." Many of those who have followed Burns' work will no doubt find much of the music familiar and be reminded from time to time of "The Civil War" and "Baseball."
If there is a failing in this documentary it is that it has trouble doing full justice to Jefferson's words, which in the final analysis are his greatest legacy and testament. The problem is that Jefferson usually wrote on large pieces of paper and the camera cannot capture an entire line, forcing it to rely time and again on showing us a few choice words and phrases. Yet there is no denying the power of those words or of seeing them written in Jefferson's own hand.
Tantalizing glimpses of an elusive American 2005-04-29
This Ken Burns documentary about the life and character of Thomas Jefferson offers some of the same touches that grace other productions by Mr. Burns: beautiful cinematography and filming (in this case, highlighted by shots of Monticello, Jefferson's 'little mountain' home in Virginia), an intelligently constructed and slowly unfolding narrative, and an emotive musical score. And to his credit, unlike other Burns' productions (such as the Civil War and Jazz), this film makes good use of a diversity of commentators, scholars and writers who give their thoughts on the subject, rather than relying on one or two main voices to guide the story. Highlights on this film are the opinions and thoughts of the historians John Hope Franklin, Joseph Ellis, and others, the writer Gore Vidal, and columnist George Will.
Ossie Davis' warm narration leads the script from consideration of Jefferson's youth, education and the contours of rural Virginia society in the mid-18th century to his entrance to the colony's political life, the writing of the Declaration, his time in France, and his sometimes bitter relations with the other leading figures of the revolutionary period (and the fundamental differences in political philosophy that they argued about). Jefferson's paradoxical, hypocritical, infuriating, and ultimately inexplicable status as an intellectual polymath, philosophe and social and political revolutionary who simultaneously held slaves, probably fathered their children, and never conceived how his status as an aristocratic representative of a bygone social order could be reconciled with the revolutionary ideas that were being put into practice in the new society he helped create receives its due attention. A touching conclusion offers a sympathetic portrait of Jefferson's years in retirement, earnestly pursuing his diverse interests, beset by money trouble, experiencing the death of many of his closest family members, and rediscovering his intimate, literate friendship with John Adams.
Ultimately, the most fascinating aspects of Jefferson that come through in this intelligent biography are the ambiguities of his character, and the idea that however much we analyze him from diverse points of view, the real, essential, Jefferson is never revealed (and perhaps never can be). This film is a highly recommended visual meditation on a complex man who makes today's political figures look like coarse, ignorant and ill-mannered children.
