“One useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.”
It’s hard to do justice to the history of Congress in an hour and a half …
“The Congress” is one of Ken Burns’ lesser-known films, perhaps partially because it was made before he became famous. “The Congress” was made in 1988, two years before his film “The Civil War” came out in 1990. Since “The Congress” is one of his earliest films, it did not have the budget granted to some of his later films (such as his World War II series). Perhaps partly because of this, it was only an hour and a half long. It’s hard to do justice to the history of Congress in an hour and a half, but I will grant that Ken Burns makes a good-faith effort to do so.
A series with the length of his “Baseball” series would have been much better
One reviewer opined that Ken Burns should have made his “Baseball” film an hour and a half long, and his Congress film 19 hours long (rather than the other way around). I don’t know if I agree with this statement, because I am a big fan of his 19-hour “Baseball” series. Nonetheless, this point is taken about the importance of Congress. It’s more important who wins Congressional elections than who wins the World Series. In this way, politics is probably more important than sports (although I do enjoy watching baseball). I would have loved it if this series had been 19 hours long – or even 6 or 7 hours long. But Ken Burns did not have the star power to make such a series in 1988. It is fortunate that his name had become better-known, by the time that he made his “Baseball” film in 1994 – thus allowing him to make that series a much longer one.
Independence Hall, where the Second Continental Congress met
American predecessors of the United States Congress (which are not covered here)
You might expect that the documentary would talk briefly about some of the American predecessors of the United States Congress. For example, you might expect that they would cover the Albany Congress of 1754, or the Stamp Act Congress of 1765. You might expect that they would at least cover the First and Second Continental Congresses, or the Congress of the Confederation (a lesser-known transition body). But instead, they begin in 1789 with the 1st United States Congress. The history of these prior Congresses is partly the history of the American Revolution, and how the Congress (and the other two branches of the American government) were founded. It thus seems quite strange to me that they omitted it. From watching this film, you wouldn’t know a thing about how the Congress was created. I can still understand why they started where they did, though, given that they didn’t even have time to cover the United States Congress in much depth – which had been meeting for about two centuries, by the time that Ken Burns made this film. Some things had to get cut out, and this was one of the things that they cut. Nonetheless, I think that the origins would have been important to cover. (Incidentally, the United States Congress was the first of these bodies to consist of two houses, rather than just one. In this respect, it was influenced by a number of prior legislative bodies – most prominently, the British Parliament.)
Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia (1787), which created the United States Congress
Congressmen and Senators mentioned by name here, and pivotal periods covered here
This documentary does refer to a number of Congressmen and Senators by name. These include Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, Thomas Brackett Reed, Joseph Gurney Cannon, George William Norris, Jeannette Rankin, and Everett Dirksen. (This list comes from Wikipedia, which I must acknowledge here as a source for this paragraph.) The film also focuses somewhat on some pivotal periods for the history of the Congress, such as the Civil War, the civil rights movement, and the women’s suffrage movement. But with only an hour and a half of runtime, it’s hard for them to really do justice to any of these topics. They could do little more than mention names, and the titles of some of the landmark laws passed by the Congress.
Henry Clay, a member of Congress that they mention
United States Capitol
Coverage of the architectural history of the Capitol Building (in which Congress meets)
But there is one topic that they actually succeed in doing justice to. This is the history of the Capitol Building in which Congress meets. They talk about how the building was constructed, and if memory serves, they have helpful pictures to dramatize this construction process. This is one of the most interesting parts of the film. It reminds one of the way that he had dramatized the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge, or the Statue of Liberty, in his two earlier films on those subjects respectively. It also reminds one of his film about the great architect Frank Lloyd Wright, which shows some of the buildings that Mr. Wright had designed. The architectural history of the Capitol Building is more important than it might seem, and he gives us a tour of the inside of the building to dramatize it. Some would probably consider this tour to be somewhat dated, but buildings don’t usually change much in a few decades, so it still seems like it works to me.
United States Capitol
Screenshot from “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” (1939 movie)
It’s difficult to dramatize the Congress, and the institution is rather vulnerable to jokes …
They also use footage from famous fictional films about the workings of Congress. These include the 1962 film “Advise & Consent” (a movie that I don’t really care for), and the 1939 film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (a much better film, which I review here). I wrote elsewhere that it’s hard to dramatize an institution like the Congress, which is known more for its talk than for its action. The executive branch is much easier to dramatize, as I have argued elsewhere. This may be why Thomas Jefferson once said: “If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?” They give this quotation in the film, as well as the one by John Adams that I began this post with. Such quotations are apt, and show that the criticism of the Congress is a tradition that dates back to the Founding Fathers themselves. There are some other such quotes in this film, which are a testament to the institution’s vulnerability to jokes, and to the free speech that makes them possible.
Capitol Dome
Capitol Dome
Nonetheless, this film is a good primer, and belongs on the history buff’s shelf despite its brevity
I don’t agree with everything in this film, and think that parts of it should actually be taken with a grain of salt. But I enjoyed the architectural history (and the visual tour of the building) as much as I enjoyed anything else. The story of the Capitol Building is an interesting footnote to the history of the institution itself. Thus, this film is a good primer on Congressional history, and a worthy addition to the history buff’s shelf, despite its brevity. It dramatizes an institution that is at the center of American life, and one that is likely to remain so for years to come.
Footnote to this blog post:
I wouldn’t mind if someone made a longer television series about the history of the Congress. Such would almost be necessary to do justice to the topic. I admit that it’s hard to hold the attention of audiences with a subject like the Congress, with so many players and so much talking. But I’d bet that if it were done right, there would still be some interest in such a series, if it were indeed actually made.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment