Easier as in lower-hanging fruit, from a stylistic point of view. It's harder to make things interesting if you can't resort to the tricks of the Hollywood trad

Easier as in lower-hanging fruit, from a stylistic point of view. It's harder to make things interesting if you can't resort to the tricks of the Hollywood trade such as emotionally manipulative music, sound effects, dramatic zooms and rapid editing. I recognize and appreciate Ken Burns' craft and find his documentaries interesting and intelligent and clearly well-researched, but I also find his work to be extremely bland. Maybe it's because his style has been endlessly copied (I don't know if this is actually the case), but a Ken Burns documentary comes across, to me, like every American History Channel or Smithsonian Channel documentary blended together; it moves at a predictable, slow pace, always with a magisterial-sounding faceless narrator (usually Peter Coyote), featuring music tailored to each scene (from folksy to solemn or patriotic; if there's a saloon on screen there'll definitely be ragtime or bluegrass playing), and always with the air of solemn respectability. I'm a much bigger fan of directors like Errol Morris, Werner Herzog and Michael Madsen (Into Eternity), who enliven the format with fewer clichés.