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

It is raining, naturally. The heavens are appropriately dark. The camera focuses tight on to the suitably grim face of our presenter who in a jerkily cut monologue declares:

"There are some places where history just grabs you by the jugular. This is one of them. A terrible place. Gettysburg. It is just awful silence here. It's so quiet you can hear the remorseless thunder of the guns. A landscape of hell. Twenty-seven thousand wounded. Eight thousand bodies. American against American. Absolute dead-on, horrifying slaughter. Insanely deluded ideas of chivalry. Confederate infantrymen and horses charging gun emplacements. Up there! [He points] Up there! [He points again in case we missed it]. Carnage. Limbs off. People screaming. Ridiculous military bands fifing and drumming their way in and out of the bloodshed. It's farmland. It's farmland! The heart of America. You walk along here, squishing the mud and you feel the bones are gonna pop up. Even the boulders feel like burial mounds."

War may be hell, but it has rarely been as hellish as this.

There are multiple ironies in American Future, although I doubt media executives realise them. They hired Simon Schama, not only because he is a natural broadcaster but because of his reputation as a historian. This is based in no small measure on Citizens, his history of the French Revolution, in which he coolly dissects how the ham theatricality and oratorical excess of the revolutionaries led France to disaster. 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.

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.