Every once in a while The History Channel knocks one out of the park. The History of Britain is one such show. I wasn’t able to catch the whole thing, but plan on hanging out around the house all day Sunday because they will be playing all of the episodes back to back. (My god what a TV day… I generally don’t watch too much, but 7 1/2 hours of British history, Futurama, the Simpsons and maybe even Malcom…. time to buy stock in Visine!) Anyway, I am posting here in GQ because I have a few questions about the series.
First off, it seemed to me that the series ended with quite a chunk of history left to tell. The series ended somewhere in the late fifteen hundreds, no? Are there more episodes on the way? Not so according to historychannel.com. Anyone know if I will ever get a chance to learn what happened up 'till now?
This brings me to my next question, who made this show? There were some production techniques that seemed History channelesque. However, the way it was several smaller episodes stitched together to make one long show made me wonder if this was an overseas production imported for my uncouth American pleasure. Was this a crossover from History Channel International? (Any Dopers get that channel? Comments?) Anyone know the history of the The History of Britain?
Lastly, can anyone vouch for the accuracy of the show? I don’t have too good of a sense of English history, so they could have slipped in all sorts of inaccuracies. To me, if a narrator with a British accent says it, its true. What say fellow dopers? Was I duped?
The best way to identify the origins of a programme (this is just in case you didn’t know) is to look at the very end of the end credits. Also, the merit of the content can often be judged by the credentials of the presenter, in this case a well respected historian, and the fact that there will be a book deal to support the series (so it has to be accurate). The BBC do try to present a balanced view.
I think you’re talking about a BBC / History Channel collaboration – this should cover everything:
London_Calling is accurate (as usual!).
The BBC is publically funded (we Brits pay a fee to use a TV, and that money goes to the BBC), so tries to be a balanced, informative and entertaining channel. They don’t always get it right, but the Government, newspapers and even us public won’t hesitate to criticise the BBC. (After all, it’s a PUBLIC service). So they’re usually pretty careful.
You kindly remarked ‘if a narrator with a British accent says it, it’s true.’
That’s very decent of you, but here’s a paradox. I have a British accent, and the above statement isn’t true!
WAG. Since it is a BBC production it is unlikely that you would get episodes in advance of us watching on its native channel. The full series has 16 one hour episodes shown weekly. The last one shown so far covered the reformation i.e. Henry VIII up to Liz First, with plenty more weeks left to run.
One of the more interesting aspects of the series is that he (note that the narrator is also the author) concentrates on those events which he feels affected the british most and sometimes skips over some of the more famous ones, which are well remebered but had less real impact on the development of a nation. Agincourt (sp?) got just a cursory mention for example.
I for one am hooked on the program and will be sorry when it finally comes to an end.
Rhythm: << First off, it seemed to me that the series ended with quite a chunk of history left to tell. The series ended somewhere in the late fifteen hundreds, no? >>
Presumably, there’s still about 350 years of history left from the late 1500s, since history came to an end in 1918.
History begins in 1066, anything before that is “since time immemorial” under British law.
Is that now the case? Previously, “time immemorial” (in essence, the era from which could be argued that local custom had been incorporated into the common law) was before the coronation of Richard I on (IIRC) 3 December 1189, and I wasn’t aware that that had changed.
Akatsukami - You’re right on the “time immemorial” point.
As for the Schama series, the BBC is making it in two parts, with the second, post-1603 series due to be shown next year. I suspect that the real reason for this is that they had promised it for 2000 but then found that they did not have enough time to make all 16 episodes by then.
I saw an interview with Schama last night and, through several different references, got the distinct impression that the whole 16-hour series has been completed.
Why would they halt it after (I think) seven programmes until next year ?: My guess is they are tying a new approach i.e. a second stab at the best sellers lists, repeat the original seven sooner than is general practice, that kind of thing.
The publicity blurb is saying….”Five years in the writing, three years in the making…” kind of stuff so there was almost certainly a substantial investment the BBC would like to recoup (or capitalise on) - should remember there are no ads on the BBC and they are increasingly looking at indirect ways to generate income. Could be a new ploy.
Or, it might be in the can but not out of post-production. However, normally they wouldn’t get in this position and if they were, would just delay broadcasting. I agree, slightly curious.
Last night’s interview with Schama rather confirmed my suspicion that work on the series is still in progress. Most of the footage and on-location scenes related to the first series, most of which we’ve already seen. The decision to publish the book in two volumes should bring in extra revenue but is also an enormous risk - it could be embarassing if the second volume doesn’t become a bestseller. I suspect that this was forced on them by the decision to screen the TV programmes over two series.
The only thing I didn’t like about the show was its use of “re-creations.” This is something the Burns brothers here in the States wisely avoid.
There are enough old paintings, drawings, tapestries, books, etc., that they don’t need to show out-of-work summer stock actors dressed up in Renaissance costumes going “gadzooks!” That sort of thing always ruins a documentary for me.
Other than that is was quite good (although the host did twitch a bit too much, they should sedate him for the next go-round).
Holy Cow was yesterday a rough day on my eyes. My To Blave and I spent the entire day just as planned. Watching, watching watching. We managed to record the whole HOB series and pause out the commercials. Toss in the Simpsons et al, and you will understand why I am typing this with icepacks on my eyes.
Thanks for the link to the BBC page - it reassured me that Fox hasn’t brought the rest of the world down to its level. I’m also got a kick out of seeing that Schama teaches at Columbia I do hope they produce the rest of the series - and that I still have cable when it airs.
As for the recreations… I like them. They don’t go too far with the recreations, i.e. no real ‘acting’ or complete scenes. Rather, they give a hint of the feel of what it looked like back then. Artwork does do a good job of giving our imagination something to chew on, but don’t forget that clothing / armor (well, since we are talking Britain, I guess that would be armour) would be visual part of history as well. The costuming changed with the time period, as did the weaponry the actors had.
And yes, give that man a sedative. We enjoyed his inflections, but he really needed to sit down in a big, comfortable chair. Just my .02
The Knight had a dark coloured spot in the centre of his armour.
use English slang
Leave it out mate. Nice set of wheels, John! I say, old boy, would you like a nice cup of tea?
Rant like an Englishman
WILL YOU STOP CALLING IT SOCCER?! IT’S FOOTBALL - WHAT YOU PLAY IS ‘AMERICAN FOOTBALL’. AND THE YANKEES HAVEN’T WON THE ‘WORLD’ SERIES, JUST THE AMERICAN CHAMPIONSHIPS!
Er, sorry about that. I really don’t know what came over me. Can I offer you a doughnut?
Great quote from a splenetic friend of mine who lives in Bedfordshire: “You dig a hole under the English Channel and what will happen? FRENCH people will come out of it!!”
Just a note or two on the original topic of the thread. I was too busy stretching and rubbing my eyes to look at the credits, but the show is probably not a History Channel/BBC colaboration as such. Generally how these things work is that everybody throws their money into a pot (and there may be up to a dozen different channels in different countries funding a major program) and then one party either does it in-house or hires an independent production company to actually make the show. There aren’t any credits on the website so it’s tough to say what actually happened in this case unless someone checks their tape.
FWIW, the B.B.C. homepage http://www.bbc.co.uk says that Simon Schama will be available for live chat at 22.00 G.M.T. Tho’ the develping electoral history of the U.S. might be of more immediate interest, I suppose.
Woe, woe and thrice woe! I was really pleased with myself for learning how to make a link that worked, but I seem to have forgotten how to do spelling. Back to skooll.
I do hope they produce the rest of the series - and that I still have cable when it airs.