Discussion
The BBC has finally brought out Civilisation on DVD.
I have watched 4 episodes so far, and it is a revelation, a totally different style.
No reconstructions by 3rd rate actors, and an assumption that the viewer already has a reasonable amount of historical knowledge.
It has got me thinking, is it that the population as a whole has declined in intelligence in the intervening period, hence the generally poor standard of current historical documentaries, or is that such programmes are no longer made for the elite, but have been dumbed down to make them 'relevant' to a class of people who probably wont watch them anyway..
I have watched 4 episodes so far, and it is a revelation, a totally different style.
No reconstructions by 3rd rate actors, and an assumption that the viewer already has a reasonable amount of historical knowledge.
It has got me thinking, is it that the population as a whole has declined in intelligence in the intervening period, hence the generally poor standard of current historical documentaries, or is that such programmes are no longer made for the elite, but have been dumbed down to make them 'relevant' to a class of people who probably wont watch them anyway..
JagLover said:
It has got me thinking, is it that the population as a whole has declined in intelligence in the intervening period, hence the generally poor standard of current historical documentaries, or is that such programmes are no longer made for the elite, but have been dumbed down to make them 'relevant' to a class of people who probably wont watch them anyway..
probably some truth in that, all that matters these days are viewing figures, historical accuracy is at the most of secondary importance. (reminds of the Romans throwing bread to the audience to keep them happy before the Gladiatorial games!)
Having said that, Master and Commander was a very enjoyable film, whilst staying very historically accurate.
chris watton said:
probably some truth in that, all that matters these days are viewing figures, historical accuracy is at the most of secondary importance. (reminds of the Romans throwing bread to the audience to keep them happy before the Gladiatorial games!)
Having said that, Master and Commander was a very enjoyable film, whilst staying very historically accurate.
Oh I loved Master & Commander, it seemed very historically accurate.
Your comment about viewing figures is sadly correct. The BBC once saw it's role as a messenger of cultural enlightment. Now it follows the lowest common denominator in a desperate quest for ratings.
JagLover said:
Oh I loved Master & Commander, it seemed very historically accurate.
It is, I should know, my job is designing wooden ship models of this era in perticular, in that process, I have to visit museums, dockyard, and read a lot about the history, as if I get even a belaying point wrong when drawing the plans, chances are some know-all will take great pleasure in telling me so! lol
JagLover said:
probably some truth in that, all that matters these days are viewing figures, historical accuracy is at the most of secondary importance. (reminds of the Romans throwing bread to the audience to keep them happy before the Gladiatorial games!)
Having said that, Master and Commander was a very enjoyable film, whilst staying very historically accurate.
Oh I loved Master & Commander, it seemed very historically accurate.
Your comment about viewing figures is sadly correct. The BBC once saw it's role as a messenger of cultural enlightment. Now it follows the lowest common denominator in a desperate quest for ratings.
of course it has to be like that though, otherwise it would be criticised for not being relevant and appealing to a minority. you are bemoaning the reduction in quality of the BBC's output when in reality it must serve the public...if the public themselves 'demand' lower quality entertainment due to whichever outside influence (ITV, advertising, lack of responsibility, whatever) then the BBC must stoop and provide...however distasteful it may be
minimax said:
of course it has to be like that though, otherwise it would be criticised for not being relevant and appealing to a minority. you are bemoaning the reduction in quality of the BBC's output when in reality it must serve the public...if the public themselves 'demand' lower quality entertainment due to whichever outside influence (ITV, advertising, lack of responsibility, whatever) then the BBC must stoop and provide...however distasteful it may be
Sadly, you're spot on
minimax said:
of course it has to be like that though, otherwise it would be criticised for not being relevant and appealing to a minority. you are bemoaning the reduction in quality of the BBC's output when in reality it must serve the public...if the public themselves 'demand' lower quality entertainment due to whichever outside influence (ITV, advertising, lack of responsibility, whatever) then the BBC must stoop and provide...however distasteful it may be
Does it need to be that way though?, the BBC is there to provide a public service, not provide programmes that would would be churned out in any case by the commercial Tv channels.
A couple of years ago, the BBC commissioned a poll which included a 'Name your favourite BBC presenter' question.
They were quite shocked at the results as they had expected most to say Carol Smilie, Ainsly Harriot, Charlie Dimmock, Anne Robinson etc.
Instead, they got a lot more votes for Adam Hart Davies, Michael Palin, Jeremy Clarkson & Kate Humble.
They obviously took this seriously as those latter presenters have since had more airtime.
Yes, the BBC is responsible for a lot of drivel (including much of it's news reportage) but they still cover travalogues, nature, documetaries and science very well IMHO. Two recent examples being A Portrait of Britain and Coast.
They were quite shocked at the results as they had expected most to say Carol Smilie, Ainsly Harriot, Charlie Dimmock, Anne Robinson etc.
Instead, they got a lot more votes for Adam Hart Davies, Michael Palin, Jeremy Clarkson & Kate Humble.
They obviously took this seriously as those latter presenters have since had more airtime.
Yes, the BBC is responsible for a lot of drivel (including much of it's news reportage) but they still cover travalogues, nature, documetaries and science very well IMHO. Two recent examples being A Portrait of Britain and Coast.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff