Let me first point out that I'm just reviewing the companion book to Ken Burns' PBS show--having not (yet!) seen the show I make no attempt at discussing how it relates to the TV program. This is simply a look on how the book holds up on its own merits.
And let me say it is an eye-popper! As a coffee table book alone, it succeeds wildly, with all kinds of stunning photos that make you want to grab the kids and hit the road....
If you pick up this book in hopes of great visuals... be prepared for a severe disappointment. The authors and publisher have chosen to print this book on flimsy, uncoated paper. As a consequence, none of the photography "pops" off the page they way you'd expect. This is a tragedy, given the inherently visual nature of the subject matter....
Mmm. Maybe check it out first. I strongly suspect your local chain bookstore will have stacks & stacks (& stacks) conveniently placed in high-traffic areas...
I didn't bother to look at most of the online commentary (because, c'mon), but this from the LATimes caught my attention:
Is Ken Burns a secret propagandist for socialism?
...But Time magazine's James Poniewozik, a columnist full of iconoclastic ideas about TV and pop culture, has come up with a brilliant take on "National Parks" that has suddenly aroused my interest in the series. In his mind, the "National Parks" project isn't just another Burns snoozefest that, as Poniewozik slyly puts it, finds the filmmaker "passionately arguing positions almost everyone agrees with." The series is actually an ingenious refutation of the popular conservative belief that big government is evil, outmoded and unnecessarily involved in ruling our lives.
Noting that the original impetus for establishing national parks came from naturalists like John Muir who were horrified to see how Niagara Falls was nearly destroyed by the greed and hucksterism of free market- loving charlatans, Poniewozik writes: "With America frothing over the role of government -- Should it save banks? Should it expand health coverage? -- 'The National Parks' makes a simple case for an idea that is wildly controversial in the year of the tea party: That we need government to do things the private sector can't or won't."
In other words, the entire origin of the national park system, whose most passionate backer was a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, is based on a firm belief in -- Glenn Beck, cover your ears, please -- government intervention to regulate an out-of-control free-enterprise system. ...
In some ways, Burns' new series sounds like almost as radical a critique of free market excess as Michael Moore's new "Capitalism: A Love Story." Of course, it's unlikely to cause as much of an uproar as "Capitalism" because Moore is a natural magnet for controversy while Burns' films, with their lilting music and cozy slo-mo zooms, can make the most incendiary historical events appear almost as soothing as a glass of warm milk.
However, Poniewozik has uncovered the razor blade inside Burns' cinematic pillow....