I’ve been watching Ken Burns’ latest mega-documentary, The War, with great interest. I encourage those of you who did not live through World War II (i.e., a heck of a lot of us) to NetFlix it when available or catch it on PBS while it’s still rerunning this month.

Burns is getting a lot of flack for his very personal and Americana approach with The War. While he relays great chronological detail of the War’s events from conflicts in Asia to Europe, the backbone storyline is told through the eyes of soldiers and communities in four U.S. towns: Mobile, Sacramento, Waterbury and Luverne. Alessandra Stanley from The New York Times doesn’t hold back, calling his approach “disconcerting.”

I have to agree with American Thinker blogger Ed Laskey that Stanley inserts her own political views in her review, making references to the Bush administration, the current war in Iraq and even the debate on standardized tests in U.S. schools. Her review cuts Burns for not bringing in viewpoints from other countries, citing The World at War, a 26-episode Brit production that apparently satisfies Stanley’s requirement for what should be contained in a WW II film.

Whether you agree with Stanley or Laskey, I think we can all agree that we wouldn’t be having this discussion if Burns had properly marketed his film. The title is “The War.” Direct? Yes. Impactful? Yes. Misleading? A little bit.

With all of Burns’ films, his approach is personal and granular. Anyone can get interviews with different viewpoints and map out a chronology of events. Only Burns can connect you with the people and communities who lived it, touched it, breathed it, walked it and agonized it. This film was produced as a tribute to our brave nation, not a political platform.

As a tribute, I believe that Burns missed the opportunity to really showcase his talent by branding his masterpiece with a very nondescript title. While clean, definitive naming is his trademark (i.e., Baseball, Jazz and The Civil War), this film seems to be especially personal and intense and calls for at least a subtitle or tagline that immediately evokes Burns’ unique approach. If Burns would be repelled by a longer title such as “Our Nation At War,” I do think he needs three or four words to accompany The War that lets viewers in on the real flavor of this film: how this most tragic war damaged and altered the U.S. as a nation - from the teen-age soldiers on the frontlines to the neighborhoods back home.

Naming is tricky business. Whether it’s a film, business, book title or a blog, the name you choose evokes immediate personal perceptions. With a different, more focused name for The War, Stanley’s argument doesn’t have many legs and the review would have had to have taken a completely different turn. And now, for those who just read her article but do not personally view the film, a perception of Burns’ work has been generated. But, unfortunately, not by Burns.