You are here:   Civilisation >  Screen > How to Make History Badly
 

The result is comically counter-productive. Emoting is meant to make history "accessible", but at no point does the BBC allow Schama to gather basic information about the Battle of Gettysburg and pass it to the viewer. He doesn't, for instance, say who won, why the victory mattered, what Pickett's charge was and why it is still cursed in the American South. (It was an infantry assault ordered by the Confederate General Robert E. Lee against Major-General George G. Meade's Union positions on Cemetery Ridge on 3 July, 1863, the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg. It was named after Major-General George Pickett, one of three Confederate generals who led the charge.) American Future can't even bring itself to mention the Gettysburg Address.

Viewers will understand why Schama felt it necessary to go to Gettysburg only if they are already initiated into the history of the American Civil War. The references to "insanely deluded notions of chivalry" will make sense only if they have read elsewhere about Pickett's charge.

The uninitiated who rely on TV for their history will learn nothing beyond the notion that battles are a bloody business, which I expect they already knew. In the name of "accessibility", supposedly anti-elitist media executives maintain that the past must remain inaccessible. A more elitist approach to intellectual life has yet to be invented.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Rob Weatherill
November 10th, 2008
4:11 PM
'The intellectual must be managed and constrained until his argument is "accessible" enough for viewers they take to be cretins to understand'. Correct. This also applies to the once great programme, "Horizon", which has been reduced to often no more than scientific special effects.

Richard
November 9th, 2008
10:11 PM
Having read Citizens, I thought it was a terrible, manipulative and dishonest book. Sounds like Simon Schama was just right for the BBC.

Steve
November 4th, 2008
10:11 AM
But TDK I don't understand. if the BBC's approach to Schama is 'killing him' then surely we should look to his most recent work as a way in to seeing exactly what has been lost by the BBC treatment. But the book is in the same format and style as the TV programme. So evidently if Schama is being ruined by the BBC they have also taken over his writing as well as presenting. Or maybe - just maybe - Nick hasn't actually read Schama's book (which has been very badly received by the historical community, by the way) and is hoping nobody notices. Of 'narrative' is to blame, it is a narrative written by one S. Schama. You can't pin this one on the beeb.

TDK
November 3rd, 2008
12:11 PM
The problem is a generation of media studies student has learnt the art of "narrative". Couple this with the assumption that we all have the attention span of goldfish and the result is the dumbing down of TV documentaries. Nice article Nick. I particularly liked "Each man kills the thing he loves, and when the BBC puts Schama on air it tells him to engage in the clichéd emotions and pathetic fallacies he earned his fame by denouncing."

Steve
October 30th, 2008
4:10 PM
You complain that the programme is arranged thematically, and I sympathise. But then you say peopel should ignore the programme because of this and go to the book - which you neglect to mention is also arranged thematically and is full of Schama's personal opinions and emoting. What's the difference?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.