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

Television's favoured tactic is to send the presenter on a "journey" - to use the current jargon. Professor Schama is one of our great historians. No one who has read him can doubt his ability to investigate and explain. However, instead of allowing him to tell us what he knows, the BBC instructs him to travel across the US and tell us what he feels.

Voyages of emotional discovery produce solipsistic journalism at the best of times. They work crashingly badly in American Future because the series is arranged thematically. In separate episodes, Professor Schama looks at the environment, religion and war. The narrative has to begin afresh each week, and the BBC should have accepted that the form it had chosen obliged it to allow him to explain his argument at length every time he began a new story. But giving the professor his head would have risked producing "boring" TV. Too many lectures and not enough scene changes. Instead of letting him elucidate, the BBC instructs him to go short on evidence and long on play acting.

The programme on the American way of war illustrates the perils of anti-intellectualism. Schama believes that America has been torn since its foundation between the principles of Thomas Jefferson, who wanted American soldiers to be citizens in uniform, and the realpolitik of Alexander Hamilton, who wanted the American army to behave like the armies of any other great power. I have my disagreements with his Manichean view - after all, as President, Jefferson organised an imperial land-grab with the Louisiana Purchase, and fought his own war on terror against the Barbary pirates. The trouble with this programme, however, is not whether its argument is right or wrong, but that the BBC gives Schama so little time to make it before packing the poor man off on another trip.

It takes him to the battlefield of Gettysburg. I think Schama wanted to argue that the Union forces began the conflict as good Jeffersonians but had to resort to brutal Hamiltonian measures to win. I say "I think" because instead of explaining himself, he gushes with all the lachrymose fervour of the late Princess of Wales.

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.