3/10
interesting but deeply flawed account
23 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I like New York. I think it is a fascinating city, one of the earliest skyscraper cities of the West, one of the most cosmopolitan and dynamic places, and I don't really care about the slow pace of the documentary, but really, to tolerate the sheer number of ludicrous statements in every chapter is too much for me. Whatever the subject, be it the amount of immigrants, the speed of construction, even the metro system, everything is in superlative. Hearing those 'historians' speaking about New York one might think there has never been urban history outside of it. It is always the best, the most, the densest, unheard of, unparalleled and etc. I mean, there are many valid points to make, as New York was a kind of first vertical metropolis of the West but the constant gratuitous exaggeration of everything annoyed the hell out of me.

In episode 4 I hear one of the historians saying that those immigrants from Russia where (I am paraphrasing) nothing has changed much from the medieval times suddenly found themselves in the most modern city on Earth. Really? I mean, Russia wasn't the most advanced state in the end of the XIXth century, but it was still one of the biggest empires and Saint-Petersburg was one of the most beautiful cities in Europe. Or when they say that the density of population of East Harlem was the biggest ever seen in the history of humanity. Wow, why not in the history of the universe? Why be so modest? These constant exaggerations really spoils what is otherwise an interesting deep insight into the urban history of the Western immigrant culture.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed