Documentary Review: I’m Chevy Chase And You’re Not (dir by Marina Zenovich)


In 2024’s Saturday Night, there’s a scene where the president of NBC (played by Willem DaFoe) tells a young and arrogant Chevy Chase (Cory Michael Smith) that, if he plays his cards right, he might someday replace Johnny Carson as America’s most popular talk show host.  When Chase brags about this to one of the writers of Saturday Night Live, the writer — who is portrayed as being a weary industry veteran — tells Chase that he will never replace Johnny Carson.  In exacting detail, he predicts that Chase will start strong.  He’ll be one of the early stars of Saturday Night Live but then he’ll let the adulation go to his head and his arrogance will alienate everyone who once believed in him and, in the end, Chevy Chase will end up a faded, nearly forgotten star.

The film obviously meant for this scene to be a crowd-pleaser.  Personally, I found it to be gratuitously cruel.  While watching Saturday Night, we all know what the future holds for Chevy Chase but having a fictional character show up for just one scene so that he can say it to Chase’s face feels excessive.  It’s not only a bit too on-the-nose but it’s also not necessary.  However, the scene does speak to a larger truth.  It’s socially acceptable to hate Chevy Chase.

The stories of Chase’s bad behavior are legendary.  People have heard the stories about him being difficult to work with on the set of Community.  They’ve heard about him suggesting a skit in which Terry Sweeney, the first openly gay member of the Saturday Night Live cast, would announce that he had AIDS.  Everyone can visualize the famous brawl that occurred between Bill Murry and Chase when the latter first returned to host SNL and I think nearly everyone agrees that they’d rather have Bill Murray crash their wedding than Chevy.  Chase is famous for being rude and for snapping at people in interviews.  It’s not only socially acceptable to hate Chevy Chase but it’s kind of expected, especially if you’re an extremely online comedy nerd.

Myself, I have to admit that I wonder why Chase’s personality is the business of anyone other than the people who have work with him.  Does the fact that he’s not lovable in real life somehow make Christmas Vacation less entertaining to watch in December and if so, why?  One might be tempted to wonder if some grace can be given to an 82 year-old man who is obviously in frail health and whose ideas about comedy were developed in a time very different from today.

That many people would answer that question with a resounding “no,” is evidence of just how bad of a reputation Chevy Chase has.  Marina Zenovich, the director of I’m Chevy Chase And You’re Not, described Chevy Chase as being the “rudest” person that she has ever interviewed and you can see more than a little of that while watching the documentary.  He replies to one question with, “You b*tch.”  (I gave up cursing for Lent and I’m not going back on my word just to quote Chevy Chase.)  Another question leads to him telling the interviewer that she’s stupid.  When asked about Terry Sweeney, Chase’s first reaction is to laugh and his second reaction is to say that he had heard Sweeney was dead.  (Sweeney is alive and, like many of the people who have worked with Chase in the past, declined to be interviewed for the documentary.  We can probably learn more from so many of them not wanting to talk about working Chase than we could from any of their interviews.)

And yet, there are scenes where you can see evidence of the aging and very human person hiding underneath all of the rudeness and the bluster.  When Zenovich mentions that a lot of people dislike Chase, the pain in his eyes will take you by surprise.  When he meets a fan in a diner, he seems to be genuinely touched.  Chase’s love for his family comes through, as does their love for him.  His daughter talks about a time when Chase nearly died and the viewer is reminded that, regardless of all the stories, he’s still a father and a husband.  There’s a moment where Chase seems to forget the name of his first wife.  Is he being a jerk or is he an 80-something man with memory issues?  It’s far too easy to make assumptions, both good and bad, about famous people who we don’t actually know.

The first fourth of the documentary discusses the early days of Chase’s career while the second fourth deals with his declining stardom and his reputation for being difficult.  Performers like Dan Aykroyd, Beverly D’Angelo, and Goldie Hawn all appear to defend him while others are a bit less charitable.  And yet, the most important part of the documentary comes towards the end, when Chase attends a showing a Christmas Vacation and takes questions from people in the audience.  Even then, Chase is a profane smart-aleck and the audience loves it.

And, for at least a little while, Chevy Chase seems to love it too.

Review: The Civil War (dir. by Ken Burns)


“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.” — Abraham Lincoln

Ken Burns’ The Civil War stands as one of those rare documentaries that completely reshapes how people think about both history and the craft of documentary filmmaking. Released in 1990, it’s been over three decades since it first aired, yet it still feels monumental in its reach and emotional resonance. Instead of serving as a dry classroom recounting of battles and dates, it’s an experience that makes you feel the war’s human dimension—the people who fought it, lived through it, and were changed forever by its violence and ideals. Burns manages to take America’s bloodiest conflict and give it a pulse, telling the story not only through historians and statistics but through letters, diaries, and voices that make you feel connected to the 1860s as if it all just happened yesterday.

One of the most defining parts of The Civil War is its look and rhythm. Burns’ now-famous visual style—those slow pans and zooms across black-and-white photographs—became such a signature technique that it’s now built into editing software as “the Ken Burns effect.” It might sound simple, but the way he moves those still images feels like breathing life into ghosts. Every slow zoom on a soldier’s uncertain face, every fade over an empty battlefield, has meaning. Before Burns, most historical documentaries presented facts through re-enactments or stiff academic interviews. Burns dared to make photographs speak on their own. The pacing he uses is hypnotic—deliberate, unwavering, and emotionally tuned to each shot. It’s a visual rhythm that invites reflection instead of speed. The whole thing feels like time itself has slowed down so history can whisper its fullest story.

The narration, provided by David McCullough, ties the sprawling story together with a sense of calm authority. His voice is warm, measured, and almost timeless, acting less like a narrator and more like an old friend who knows the past intimately but never overstates it. McCullough’s presence builds trust—no hype, no theatrics, just thoughtful storytelling. Burns pairs that voice with readings from letters, diaries, and contemporary accounts, delivered by a lineup of talented voice actors like Jason Robards, Sam Waterston, and Morgan Freeman. Their readings never feel like performances; they feel lived in, restrained, and sincere. This combination of voice and image creates a tone that is both haunting and beautiful, one that makes history feel alive but not romanticized.

A huge part of why the series feels so moving is Jay Ungar’s “Ashokan Farewell.” Oddly enough, it’s not a Civil War-era tune at all—it was written in the 1980s—but it fits so organically with the documentary’s mood that it’s impossible to think about the series without hearing it. The plaintive fiddle melody has a mournful warmth, evoking the loss and longing that defines the entire project. Burns and his team used it in just the right measure: when the music plays, it deepens emotion rather than dictating it. Combined with other period-appropriate folk songs, banjo pieces, and hymns, the soundtrack acts as the emotional current guiding the story through landscapes of death, courage, and change.

The structure of The Civil War is deceptively simple but brilliantly executed. Spanning nine episodes and over eleven hours in total, it charts the war from its earliest, uneasy beginnings in the political debates over slavery and statehood through to its catastrophic conclusion and fragile aftermath. Burns understood that history isn’t static; it’s emotional and cumulative. The early episodes almost feel optimistic—the tone of youthful bravado and national pride fills the air as both sides believe the conflict will end quickly. As the series progresses, though, the optimism curdles into fatigue, despair, and grief. By the time the war drags into its later years, the imagery, narration, and music all carry the weight of shared tragedy. You begin to see how idealism eroded into acceptance of horror. The careful pacing of each episode allows viewers to feel that arc not just intellectually but emotionally.

Among the many creative decisions Burns made, choosing to anchor the series around personal letters was perhaps the most effective. Through these letters, anonymous soldiers, wives, and family members speak across time. Their words carry more power than any historian’s commentary could. One of the most unforgettable moments comes from Union officer Sullivan Ballou’s letter to his wife, written shortly before he was killed. His words are devastating in their tenderness and resignation, summing up both love and mortality in a way that feels timeless. Burns threads similar letters throughout the series—from soldiers on both sides, from civilians caught in the middle, and from the enslaved people whose freedom hung in the balance. Their voices form the emotional backbone of the documentary, constantly reminding us that this was not just a war of strategy but a catastrophe of human consequence.

Alongside these voices, there’s a chorus of historians offering perspective and context. Shelby Foote, with his Southern drawl and gift for anecdote, became one of the documentary’s most recognizable figures. His storytelling bridges the gap between scholarship and folklore, even if some critics later accused him of romanticizing the Confederate perspective. Counterbalancing that, historian Barbara Fields provides some of the series’ most profound reflections, particularly regarding race and memory. Her insistence that the war’s legacy continues to shape American identity feels just as relevant now as it did in 1990. Their alternating viewpoints give the documentary balance—emotion on one side, intellect and conscience on the other.

Burns’ handling of tone is one of the most striking things on a rewatch. It’s both deeply romantic in its love of storytelling and brutally realistic in its depiction of suffering. It doesn’t sanitize the war, but it doesn’t exploit it either. You’re never shown battle reenactments, explosions, or gore. Instead, Burns conveys the violence and despair through letters, photos, and silence. He trusts the audience to fill in the horror. That’s uncommon in modern documentary work, where there’s often pressure to explain or dramatize everything. In The Civil War, silence becomes a storytelling device. The pauses between sentences, the long holds on a tattered flag or a battlefield grave, carry meaning. The documentary refuses to rush toward catharsis; it lingers in grief.

In today’s media landscape—where documentaries tend to move fast and fight for attention—Burns’ slower, more contemplative approach stands out. Back in 1990, it riveted viewers. An estimated 40 million people watched it on PBS, an unbelievable number for a historical series on public television. For many Americans, it became their most vivid introduction to their own national history. It made people talk about Gettysburg, Lincoln, emancipation, and the moral aftermath of the war in living rooms across the country. It even sparked renewed interest in Civil War books, memorials, and battlefield preservation. Burns had tapped into something rare: a collective need to understand who Americans are by understanding what nearly destroyed them.

Even decades later, The Civil War holds up both artistically and historically. Watching it now, its moral clarity about slavery as the war’s central cause feels vital, especially in a time when debates over monuments and racial politics remain heated. Burns never let the series fall into the “states’ rights” trap that muddied so many earlier narratives. He continually foregrounded the human cost of defending or destroying the institution of slavery. Still, modern viewers might wish for even more emphasis on the experiences of Black Americans, beyond the selected diaries and Douglass excerpts. The documentary touched these stories with respect but within the limits of its early-1990s format. Later historians have expanded upon what Burns began, but his foundation remains solid.

Technically, the documentary’s aged well. Restored versions bring new clarity to the old photographs, and the audio’s crisp enough to make the letters feel freshly read. The storytelling, slow-moving as it is, rewards patience. It’s not content to skim across major events; it expects you to sit with sorrow, fatigue, and loss. Watching all eleven hours feels like reading an epic novel: it’s best done gradually, letting each episode resonate before starting the next. The cumulative effect isn’t just historical understanding—it’s emotional exhaustion tempered by awe.

The Civil War remains one of the greatest nonfiction works ever broadcast. It’s not simply about battles or leaders but about the psychology of a country divided by ideals and identity. It asks questions rather than delivering verdicts—questions about sacrifice, belief, morality, and what it means to be American. Few documentaries manage to tell old stories in ways that still feel alive, but Burns achieved that through patience, empathy, and an unshakable faith in the power of storytelling. Even now, it’s hard to watch without feeling the echo of those voices—some hopeful, some broken—that seem to reach out from still photographs and faded ink. Burns didn’t just document history; he let history speak for itself. That’s why The Civil War endures.

Perhaps it’s even more important now than when it first aired. In a time when historical revisionism has begun to creep from the fringes into mainstream discourse and when the nation feels dangerously forgetful of its own moral and political lessons, Burns’ documentary serves as both a warning and a reminder. It shows what happens when ideology overtakes humanity and when a country forgets the cost of its own divisions. Watching The Civil War today feels less like revisiting the past and more like confronting the present—proof that the ghosts of that conflict remain, quietly urging us not to repeat what we once swore to never forget.