Required Historical Programs

>>In America, everyone assumes we just can't get enough Founding Fathers and
removes most of the other historical study we might be interested in.>>

Say rather Henry VIII and his wives or Elizabeth I and I'd agree.

Virginia

--- In , fairerichard3@a... wrote:
> >>In America, everyone assumes we just can't get enough Founding
Fathers and
> removes most of the other historical study we might be interested in.>>
>
> Say rather Henry VIII and his wives or Elizabeth I and I'd agree.
>
> Virginia
>
>
>


There is a new series on Channel 4 in England about the Medicis. The first
episode was tonight. It covered the life of Cosimo, who was born in the
1390s and I can't remember when he died. I was interested to learn that the
Medici bank had a branch in Cairo, so then wondered whether they had any
dealings with England, especially since their wealth was founded on wool.

From the numbers of actors and costumes it looks as if it was an expensive
production.

I often have reservations about TV historical programmes.

There has been an occasional good ones but I'm afraid rather rarely.

I can see it being interesting to see the places where events happen
or famous people were associated with. Film can be better than
photographs in that regard and we can't all travel to the sites we
may want to.

I also can see TV as being good of introducing people to history and
hopefully encouraging people to incestigate further.

On the other hand it can often leave to glibness. I'm not blaming the
historians/ writers completely. How can anyone sum up complex
historical events or people in a few sound bites?

Since one needs visuals we have historians/ hosts riding horses,
driving along in their cars en route to battle grounds and talking at
the same time (not very safe surely) and wandering around old ruins.

Also some rather strange visuals. For example I recently saw a
programme on Leonardo da Vinci and a couple of times they show films
of flowers. Very lovely flowers and maybe da Vinci loved flowers but
if he did no mention was made in the documentary so I'm still puzzled
about it.

Sorry for being a grouch and I apologised for any TV history makers
on the forum.

As I said before there has been some good TV history programmes and
there certainly been some bad and glib books.

Yes,I would love an excellent, well researched, balanced TV series
with relevant, stunning visuals on our favourite gentleman.

Helen

By sticking "experts" into a drama the producers can call in
documentary, and pay everyone a lot less than if it was a real drama.
Most of them are pretty useless, although we recently were treated to a
wonderful film about Becket, and last year a little masterpiece about
Pompeii.
But the majority look cheap, and I must admit I saw the first episode
of The Medicis on Discovery, and didn't watch the rest, for the reason
stated above. I thought it looked a bit cheap.
Still it is better than some. Like one in which they used the same 6
extras as their crowd and just moved them around from shot to shot, but
didn't even bother changing their costumes!
Oh for the days of real budgets.
I recently saw the tv version of Spartacus and was surprised at how
good it is. Yes, you have to forget the original movie, no Olivier,
Laughton or Ustinov. But they have gone back to the original novel and
it all makes a lot more sense. And they clearly spent a lot of money on
it.
Paul

On Nov 27, 2004, at 22:26, dixonian2004 wrote:

> There is a new series on Channel 4 in England about the Medicis. The
> first
> episode was tonight. It covered the life of Cosimo, who was born in
> the
> 1390s and I can't remember when he died. I was interested to learn
> that the
> Medici bank had a branch in Cairo, so then wondered whether they had
> any
> dealings with England, especially since their wealth was founded on
> wool.
>
> From the numbers of actors and costumes it looks as if it was an
> expensive
> production.
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams

But how do some of these "experts" get away with blatant errors? I'm
not talking so much about Starkey or Schama who tend to be more
opinionated than inaccurate but a couple of years ago there was a
series on Kings and Queens of Britain which had some really glaring
factual errors. I remember that the presenter was a history professor
at Oxford or Cambridge and some of the things he said were just plain
wrong and anyone with access to an Oxford History of Britain could
have seen that. It was on Channel 5 though so I should have known
better than to expect accuracy.

And re-enactments usually involve (a) guys in long cloaks striding
through corridors looking sinister or (b) guys on horses holding
their swords aloft! And the re-enactments on the Medici show seemed
to soley consist of the actor playing Cosimo stroking his chin and
looking thoughtful!

Tracy-Anne

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> By sticking "experts" into a drama the producers can call in
> documentary, and pay everyone a lot less than if it was a real
drama.
> Most of them are pretty useless, although we recently were treated
to a
> wonderful film about Becket, and last year a little masterpiece
about
> Pompeii.
> But the majority look cheap, and I must admit I saw the first
episode
> of The Medicis on Discovery, and didn't watch the rest, for the
reason
> stated above. I thought it looked a bit cheap.
> Still it is better than some. Like one in which they used the same
6
> extras as their crowd and just moved them around from shot to shot,
but
> didn't even bother changing their costumes!
> Oh for the days of real budgets.
> I recently saw the tv version of Spartacus and was surprised at how
> good it is. Yes, you have to forget the original movie, no Olivier,
> Laughton or Ustinov. But they have gone back to the original novel
and
> it all makes a lot more sense. And they clearly spent a lot of
money on
> it.
> Paul
>
> On Nov 27, 2004, at 22:26, dixonian2004 wrote:
>
> > There is a new series on Channel 4 in England about the Medicis.
The
> > first
> > episode was tonight. It covered the life of Cosimo, who was born
in
> > the
> > 1390s and I can't remember when he died. I was interested to
learn
> > that the
> > Medici bank had a branch in Cairo, so then wondered whether they
had
> > any
> > dealings with England, especially since their wealth was founded
on
> > wool.
> >
> > From the numbers of actors and costumes it looks as if it was an
> > expensive
> > production.
> >
> you're never too old to launch your dreams
>
>
>

I think you mean Nigel Spivey. There was a programme on Richard and my predecessor as Group Chairman wrote to him to complain. The reply said something like "Don't blame me guv, I'm only the presenter."
----- Original Message -----
From: hiraeth2
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Required Historical Programs VOT



But how do some of these "experts" get away with blatant errors? I'm
not talking so much about Starkey or Schama who tend to be more
opinionated than inaccurate but a couple of years ago there was a
series on Kings and Queens of Britain which had some really glaring
factual errors. I remember that the presenter was a history professor
at Oxford or Cambridge and some of the things he said were just plain
wrong and anyone with access to an Oxford History of Britain could
have seen that. It was on Channel 5 though so I should have known
better than to expect accuracy.

And re-enactments usually involve (a) guys in long cloaks striding
through corridors looking sinister or (b) guys on horses holding
their swords aloft! And the re-enactments on the Medici show seemed
to soley consist of the actor playing Cosimo stroking his chin and
looking thoughtful!

Tracy-Anne

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> By sticking "experts" into a drama the producers can call in
> documentary, and pay everyone a lot less than if it was a real
drama.
> Most of them are pretty useless, although we recently were treated
to a
> wonderful film about Becket, and last year a little masterpiece
about
> Pompeii.
> But the majority look cheap, and I must admit I saw the first
episode
> of The Medicis on Discovery, and didn't watch the rest, for the
reason
> stated above. I thought it looked a bit cheap.
> Still it is better than some. Like one in which they used the same
6
> extras as their crowd and just moved them around from shot to shot,
but
> didn't even bother changing their costumes!
> Oh for the days of real budgets.
> I recently saw the tv version of Spartacus and was surprised at how
> good it is. Yes, you have to forget the original movie, no Olivier,
> Laughton or Ustinov. But they have gone back to the original novel
and
> it all makes a lot more sense. And they clearly spent a lot of
money on
> it.
> Paul
>
> On Nov 27, 2004, at 22:26, dixonian2004 wrote:
>
> > There is a new series on Channel 4 in England about the Medicis.
The
> > first
> > episode was tonight. It covered the life of Cosimo, who was born
in
> > the
> > 1390s and I can't remember when he died. I was interested to
learn
> > that the
> > Medici bank had a branch in Cairo, so then wondered whether they
had
> > any
> > dealings with England, especially since their wealth was founded
on
> > wool.
> >
> > From the numbers of actors and costumes it looks as if it was an
> > expensive
> > production.
> >
> you're never too old to launch your dreams
>
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

hiraeth2 wrote:
>
> But how do some of these "experts" get away with blatant errors? I'm
> not talking so much about Starkey or Schama who tend to be more
> opinionated than inaccurate but a couple of years ago there was a
> series on Kings and Queens of Britain which had some really glaring
> factual errors. I remember that the presenter was a history professor
> at Oxford or Cambridge and some of the things he said were just plain
> wrong and anyone with access to an Oxford History of Britain could
> have seen that. It was on Channel 5 though so I should have known
> better than to expect accuracy.


Oh God, I remember that one. I watched the first episode and cringed so
much that I never turned it on again.

Mind you, Spivey is a classicist. Seeing as how one of my family is one,
I know exactly how crap their knowledge of modern history can be (let's
just say that my relative didn't know the most basic terms of
Renaissance art, one of which he needed to use for a book he was writing...)

Jenny

--- In , Jennifer Delaney
<clanwilliam@g...> wrote:
> hiraeth2 wrote:
> >
> > But how do some of these "experts" get away with blatant errors? I'm
> > not talking so much about Starkey or Schama who tend to be more
> > opinionated than inaccurate but a couple of years ago there was a
> > series on Kings and Queens of Britain which had some really glaring
> > factual errors. I remember that the presenter was a history professor
> > at Oxford or Cambridge and some of the things he said were just plain
> > wrong and anyone with access to an Oxford History of Britain could
> > have seen that. It was on Channel 5 though so I should have known
> > better than to expect accuracy.
>
>
> Oh God, I remember that one. I watched the first episode and cringed so
> much that I never turned it on again.
>
> Mind you, Spivey is a classicist. Seeing as how one of my family is one,
> I know exactly how crap their knowledge of modern history can be (let's
> just say that my relative didn't know the most basic terms of
> Renaissance art, one of which he needed to use for a book he was
writing...)
>
> Jenny




I am not particularly interested in the Medicis, and I only watched the
programme because it is obviously going to cover part of the period in which
we are so interested. Having said that, my criticism would be that it was too
long and too short on information - I do agree with the comment on the
thoughtful looks, but assume that they can be used over and over again - one
size fits all.

What crossed my mind was that if the Medici bank was so well organised as
to have a branch in Cairo, it is possible that they had interests in England,
and perhaps representatives or even spies here. Since a lot of the very
scarce contemporary material available comes from the likes of Mancini and
de Commynes, as well as von Poppelau, all of whom were beyond the reach
of the Tudors, could there be any sort of records held by the Medicis? The
wool trade brought enormous wealth to England, and Edward IV was a keen
supporter of it. Even if he didn't come into direct contact with the Medicis,
they would surely have been aware of Edward and his business abilities,
which seem to have been pretty good.

--- In , "dixonian2004"
<dixonian2004@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Jennifer Delaney
> <clanwilliam@g...> wrote:
> > hiraeth2 wrote:
> > >
> > > But how do some of these "experts" get away with blatant
errors? I'm
> > > not talking so much about Starkey or Schama who tend to be
more
> > > opinionated than inaccurate but a couple of years ago there
was a
> > > series on Kings and Queens of Britain which had some really
glaring
> > > factual errors. I remember that the presenter was a history
professor
> > > at Oxford or Cambridge and some of the things he said were
just plain
> > > wrong and anyone with access to an Oxford History of Britain
could
> > > have seen that. It was on Channel 5 though so I should have
known
> > > better than to expect accuracy.
> >
> >
> > Oh God, I remember that one. I watched the first episode and
cringed so
> > much that I never turned it on again.
> >
> > Mind you, Spivey is a classicist. Seeing as how one of my family
is one,
> > I know exactly how crap their knowledge of modern history can be
(let's
> > just say that my relative didn't know the most basic terms of
> > Renaissance art, one of which he needed to use for a book he was
> writing...)
> >
> > Jenny
>
>
Spivey was terrible and it certainly showed that he was not a
medievalist. The episode on Richard was probably the worst piece of
biased presentation I have ever seen - I don't mind a negative
conclusion (like Robinson's) provided they give a fair crack to both
sides of the story. I have to be careful sometimes at work not to
let my persoanl bias interfere with the need to train the students
in objectivity - especially if I am going to complain of tv
historians doing the same! But he made me want to throw something
through the tv. I am thinking of taking out extra tv insurance
before Starkey's next installment which should be on the Yorkists.
Brunhild