Critique of Ken Burns' Jack Johnson Documentary

[Sidney Carton]

IMOP the HBO special on Joe Louis was just a bunch of anti-American commie crap pousing as a new documentery too.

I wasn't aware of that. I'll try to find it.

[HomicideHenry]

IMOP the HBO special on Joe Louis was just a bunch of anti-American commie crap pousing as a new documentery too.

America's Hero Betrayed.... yeah, I got that same feeling after watching it.... Sure, Louis was persecuted by the IRS for many years but at the same damn time there is nobody to blame for his debts, than his own self.... The irony is that all these celebrities (namely, Sinatra) paid off his debts AFTER he died, but nobody sure as hell did anything for him while he was alive. To me, that is the betrayal, not that America was on a witch hunt (because it wasn't).

[APerno]

BTW Mysterious Billy Smith would have kicked Joe Gans' butt, but Gans refused to cross the 'uncertainty line.'

That comment is definitely worthy of boxing "expert" Ken Burns

Welterweight Billy Smith's career was effectively over by 1900.

Joe Gans won the lightweight title in 1902.

I have never seen any mention of Gans and Billy Smith.

As a lightweight Gans fought a 20 round draw with Joe Walcott, Smith's conqueror.

As a lightweight Gans knocked out welterweight title claimant Mike Twin Sullivan TWICE.

Lightweight Gans fought approximately one third of his fights against fighters heavier than he was.

You made a very strange choice to pick Joe Gans, of all fighters, as a fighter who "refused to cross the 'uncertainty line.' "

It was a joke, a bad pun on the 'color line' - you know, mysterious -> 'uncertainty line' - just a bad pun - Happy New Year - 'smell you tomorrow'

[Sidney Carton]

BTW I always run the Johnson-Willard fight footage on that DVD on it at half speed on my DVD player which is closer
to what it looked like when the film was made and shown originally and it almost looks like a completly different fight in doing so
not ridiculous fast like old Keystone Cops movies.,Im sure they knew this and chose to show it playing fast to make the fight look stupid
and take away some of Willard's victory.

Ken Burns is now working on a documentary on Ali.

That should be a winner.

Maybe he can bring back the same boxing "experts."

[APerno]

BTW I always run the Johnson-Willard fight footage on that DVD on it at half speed on my DVD player which is closer
to what it looked like when the film was made and shown originally and it almost looks like a completly different fight in doing so
not ridiculous fast like old Keystone Cops movies.,Im sure they knew this and chose to show it playing fast to make the fight look stupid
and take away some of Willard's victory.

Barbarian,

I suspect you know this but: per-1925 film was filmed at (usually)18 frames per second (because they were hand cranked they fluctuated between 16 and 20 frames per); today's projectors play the footage back at 24 frames per and video is taped at 30 seconds per - that's why silent films looks so jerky - of course it can be corrected but it cumbersome to do - (I believe) that if they correct it by using just a computer program the image looks slowed down, but not natural - to do it correctly they have to project the film at 18 frames per and then re-film it at 24 frames, (or video tape it at 30 seconds per,) using a device called a 'film chain,' similar to the ones used today to change 24 frame film into 30 frame per second video; I believe this is why so few silent films have been corrected, there is no money in; it is not just a simple computer program; it is labor intensive, and besides the film chain needs an 18 frame projector, which I suspect are not easy to come by today. . . of course there is no reason why Burns shouldn't have put forth the effort, his productions should be of a highest quality, and to transfer the small amounts of footage he used would not have been unreasonable. - But I find it hard to believe he wold want to make Willard look bad, besides to make Willard look bad he has to make Johnson look silly as well.

[Sidney Carton]

BTW I always run the Johnson-Willard fight footage on that DVD on it at half speed on my DVD player which is closer
to what it looked like when the film was made and shown originally and it almost looks like a completly different fight in doing so
not ridiculous fast like old Keystone Cops movies.,Im sure they knew this and chose to show it playing fast to make the fight look stupid
and take away some of Willard's victory.

Film expert [?] Ken Burns made an ass out of himself throughout his Jack Johnson 'documentary.'

He ran lengthy sections of the Johnson-Willard fight at a wrong, ridiculously speeded up speed,
Johnson threw a lot of punches in the early part of the fight and apparently Burns thought the speeded up film made Johnson look good.

Instead of showing Tommy Burns knocking out Bill Squires or Gunner Moir, Burns chose to show Burns standing at a distance from an opponent and doing nothing, throwing no punches and not stepping in.
That was a noticably strange choice with all the film available of Burns .

Overall, Burns was desperate to paint Johnson as so superior that he stood far above all fighters.
Burns' stupid and awkward attempt to tear down Joe Louis was pathetic. (described above in the quote from the article).

The article also mentions Burns showing the reversed film of Johnson sparring, where Burns nailed himself as totally ignorant of the subject he was posing as an expert on.

[klompton]

I suspect you know this but: per-1925 film was filmed at (usually)18 frames per second (because they were hand cranked they fluctuated between 16 and 20 frames per);

This is incorrect. Only very early cameras didnt have a consistent frame rate. By the 1910s cameras were fitted with a cam that stabilized the speed of the film no matter how fast you cranked.

today's projectors play the footage back at 24 frames per and video is taped at 30 seconds per - that's why silent films looks so jerky - of course it can be corrected but it cumbersome to do - (I believe)

Projectors can play back footage at whatever speed you want. They have a dial you can turn to speed up or slow down the footage. 24 frames per second is the speed at which sound film is shot and projected. But like silent film sound film can be run through a projector at whatever speed you want, the sound will just sound low and slow. The problem isnt with projecting but transferring the film to safety. Old nitrate films typically ran at 15 or 18 frames a second (Ive even seen one that ran at 13 frames per second). When these old, flammable films were transferred to safety film for preservation they were transferred using technology that was designed for sound film and as such they were printed at 24 frames per second. When you run these films through the projector at that speed they become comically fast. Video tape doesnt factor into the equation because while they do run at 30 frames per second (slightly less actually) they still capture the images at the speed that the images are being projected. When that image is being projected at 24 frames per second for example video simply creates the extra frames by blending two frames together.

that if they correct it by using just a computer program the image looks slowed down, but not natural - to do it correctly they have to project the film at 18 frames per and then re-film it at 24 frames, (or video tape it at 30 seconds per,) using a device called a 'film chain,' similar to the ones used today to change 24 frame film into 30 frame per second video;

This is totally inaccurate. Films are not transferred professionally in this manner. For a professional transfer a special scanner is used that pulls the film through incrementally scanning each individual frame of the film. This creates thousands or even millions of sequential images. Those images are then digitally recompiled in order and can be processed at whatever speed you want in perfect clarity.

I believe this is why so few silent films have been corrected, there is no money in; it is not just a simple computer program; it is labor intensive, and besides the film chain needs an 18 frame projector, which I suspect are not easy to come by today. . .

Again, totally inaccurate. Hundreds of thousands of silent films have been transferred correctly and more are transferred correctly every single day. Its also inexpensive, relatively, costing on average between $.12 and $.15 per foot for HD. Thats roughly $450 for a very long silent boxing match with training footage etc tacked on. Thats not bad at all.

of course there is no reason why Burns shouldn't have put forth the effort, his productions should be of a highest quality, and to transfer the small amounts of footage he used would not have been unreasonable. - But I find it hard to believe he wold want to make Willard look bad, besides to make Willard look bad he has to make Johnson look silly as well.

You can tell from the film Unforgiveable Blackness that Burns was using a professional HD transfer and that he simply manipulated the film for theatrical effect. He didnt just speed it up but also slowed it down in places and even used still frame progressions. I dont get the impression that he was trying to make Willard look bad.

[APerno]

I suspect you know this but: per-1925 film was filmed at (usually)18 frames per second (because they were hand cranked they fluctuated between 16 and 20 frames per);

This is incorrect. Only very early cameras didnt have a consistent frame rate. By the 1910s cameras were fitted with a cam that stabilized the speed of the film no matter how fast you cranked.

today's projectors play the footage back at 24 frames per and video is taped at 30 seconds per - that's why silent films looks so jerky - of course it can be corrected but it cumbersome to do - (I believe)

Projectors can play back footage at whatever speed you want. They have a dial you can turn to speed up or slow down the footage. 24 frames per second is the speed at which sound film is shot and projected. But like silent film sound film can be run through a projector at whatever speed you want, the sound will just sound low and slow. The problem isnt with projecting but transferring the film to safety. Old nitrate films typically ran at 15 or 18 frames a second (Ive even seen one that ran at 13 frames per second). When these old, flammable films were transferred to safety film for preservation they were transferred using technology that was designed for sound film and as such they were printed at 24 frames per second. When you run these films through the projector at that speed they become comically fast. Video tape doesnt factor into the equation because while they do run at 30 frames per second (slightly less actually) they still capture the images at the speed that the images are being projected. When that image is being projected at 24 frames per second for example video simply creates the extra frames by blending two frames together.

that if they correct it by using just a computer program the image looks slowed down, but not natural - to do it correctly they have to project the film at 18 frames per and then re-film it at 24 frames, (or video tape it at 30 seconds per,) using a device called a 'film chain,' similar to the ones used today to change 24 frame film into 30 frame per second video;

This is totally inaccurate. Films are not transferred professionally in this manner. For a professional transfer a special scanner is used that pulls the film through incrementally scanning each individual frame of the film. This creates thousands or even millions of sequential images. Those images are then digitally recompiled in order and can be processed at whatever speed you want in perfect clarity.

I believe this is why so few silent films have been corrected, there is no money in; it is not just a simple computer program; it is labor intensive, and besides the film chain needs an 18 frame projector, which I suspect are not easy to come by today. . .

Again, totally inaccurate. Hundreds of thousands of silent films have been transferred correctly and more are transferred correctly every single day. Its also inexpensive, relatively, costing on average between $.12 and $.15 per foot for HD. Thats roughly $450 for a very long silent boxing match with training footage etc tacked on. Thats not bad at all.

of course there is no reason why Burns shouldn't have put forth the effort, his productions should be of a highest quality, and to transfer the small amounts of footage he used would not have been unreasonable. - But I find it hard to believe he wold want to make Willard look bad, besides to make Willard look bad he has to make Johnson look silly as well.

You can tell from the film Unforgiveable Blackness that Burns was using a professional HD transfer and that he simply manipulated the film for theatrical effect. He didnt just speed it up but also slowed it down in places and even used still frame progressions. I dont get the impression that he was trying to make Willard look bad.

'Hundreds of thousands' of silent films were never made that is not an incorrect statement, it is a 'totaly' silly one - where are these supposed films, who shows them - me thinks you are talking over your head. But it's still a semi-free country so have at it.

[klompton]

What do you mean they were never made? If you mean they deteriorated, were destroyed, lost etc. Then yes you are correct. But that wasnt your original point. You stated that it was costly, time consuming, and labor intensive and that you need a special projector that runs at 18 frames per second to transfer silent films at their correct speed and according to you thats why not many have been transferred correctly. Thats simply not true. Its not labor intensive (its actually an automated process), it relatively inexpensive (as I illustrated), and its only as time consuming as it takes the scanner to process the film (But since its automated you could literally do it over night in your sleep).

Archives all over the world routinely process silent films on a daily basis. How many examples would you like because we'll be here all day. For commercial releases for public purchase Kino Lorber is constantly doing this but you can pretty much name any archive in any country that has holdings dating back to the silent era and they are doing this. Im having done by an archive in California as I type this. Frankly Im amazed you actually think the system works the way it does.

Considering I pay to have this done all the time and understand the process intimately and you clearly have no clue what you are talking about I'll let the people who read this decide for themselves.

[Caractacus]

He also made light and causually dismissed mention of Jack Johnson's autobiography IN THE RING AND OUT (published in 1927)
One of my all time favorite books which Ive read a number of times since it was re-printed back in 1977.
I guess he didnt like what Jack Johnson had to say about things in his chapters like Life After 50,
because it would make make Jack Johnson 'politically Incorrect"
in this day and age.

[APerno]

Why do you all seem to dislike Burns so much; is there such a thing as an unbias history?

[Caractacus]

He also knowingly perpetuated the Stanley Ketchel 'Double-Cross".
which was once again de-bunked thourouly on this forum a few years ago.

[APerno]

I just read some of the debunking posts from 2010 - most of that seems based on Johnson's account; but is this not the same man who for decades claimed he threw the Willard fight, ('my arms were shading my eyes, and my knees were off the floor because it was hot BS; of course this claim was debunked when the full film once came available) - so why trust Johnson on this issue - I personally don't believe the 'double cross' story either, but I wouldn't trust Johnson's version either. His story about rehearsing the KD to build movie attendance sounds as made-up as the double cross story.

[klompton]

I believe Johnson faked the knockdown for the benefit of the films. You can see in the film he repeatedly hold Ketchel up when hes knocked down/wobbled. He was obviously carrying him and could have stopped him whenever. Combined with the fact that he owned a percentage of the film revenue it looks very likely and is very logical, that he did indeed do what he could to make the fight seem more competetive and more exciting. Who would pay, in that era, to see a giant black guy absolutely embarrass a little white guy. Now turn it into a david and goliath story where david just barely missed a stoppage and you have a much more marketable film which means more money for Johnson.

[APerno]

I agree it is a logical argument and to Johnson's benefit - but I would question anything based on Johnson (Johnson's honesty.)