Should TV mess with history?

[Leman]

Ok, if you don't give a monkeys about how history is constantly misrepresented on TV or in film purely for entertainment and ratings then this thread is not for you. However, as a historian I do find this tendency particularly galling. I have recently written about a manoeuvre made by the Beeb to 'enhance' the story of a person's relative, but was shooed off that thread. For those who are miffed about broadcasters and film makers who do this far too frequently  here's a place for you to comment.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Honestly, it doesn’t take much research to get it right. Nicholas Parsons was famously declined from ‘Who Do You think You Are?’ for being to boring! Excitement and story sells, like the recent ‘Gunpowder’ miniseries, which was highly biased against the British state (made a change)!
But my favourite ever ER episode was the one where nothing happened!

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Sorry about the other thread Leman...

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

The "yesterday" WWI by the numbers had a load of mistakes in it !

IanS

[Glorfindel]

Ideally, I would prefer them to get their facts straight.   As mentioned above, it
shouldn't be too difficult.

I remember seeing the 1998 film of the 'Man in the Iron Mask'.    Not bad adventure
story with some famous faces and included what (to me) seemed like credible French
uniforms.   Anyway, the film was gliding to a satisfactory conclusion when the final
voiceover caused some seriously raised eyebrows.

The wistful voice informed us that "Louis XIV gave his people food, prosperity and peace".
Cough, splutter, serious eyebrow raising, informing beloved of Louis' many faults etc etc.

As far as I can see, there are two general issues :

   a.   Despite its faults, I would rather have a chance to see bad history on the screen than
   not see it.   I really enjoyed seeing this period being re-enacted.   Might lead to more
   research / buying of wargame figures etc;

   b.  However, my concern is that too many people will take what they see as gospel.
   When this concerns a daft film, it doesn't really matter that much - it does perhaps 
   show how easily people can be manipulated...



Phil

[Techno]

Ideally, I would prefer them to get their facts straight.   As mentioned above, it
shouldn't be too difficult.

As far as I can see, there are two general issues :

   a.   Despite its faults, I would rather have a chance to see bad history on the screen than
   not see it.   I really enjoyed seeing this period being re-enacted.   Might lead to more
   research / buying of wargame figures etc;

   b.  However, my concern is that too many people will take what they see as gospel.
   When this concerns a daft film, it doesn't really matter that much - it does perhaps 
   show how easily people can be manipulated...
Phil

I'm with Glorfindel Phil on this.

With a lot of the 'historical' progs I sometimes get to watch.....I  feel that I've actually learned something.....But then I wonder how much of a false idea of the particular period I'm getting.
I get the impression that a lot of the programmes get 'sexed up', to encourage people like yours truly to watch them.
(Historical muppets like me, anyway.)

I can certainly understand why those who have done a lot of research into a particular period, get annoyed by misrepresentations, though.

Cheers - Phil.

[FierceKitty]

I'd question the excitement of Gunpowder.

In response to the question, no.

[Dr Dave]

... like the recent 'Gunpowder' miniseries, which was highly biased against the British state (made a change)!

That's interesting. I thought it showed the plotters in a very poor light - real nutters / fundamentaloids - especially Fawkes. Their Spanish "allies" weren't much better with their snacking whilst burning people AND to cap it all they go and betray them anyway! Yes, the British manner of execution was a bit OTT, but them's the rules: firm, but cruel. At least they had HDQ down to a tee.

Very topical though: the 17th Century MI5 & Special Branch rooting out religious fanatics.

[toxicpixie]

Rather enjoyed Gunpowder, I kept my teethgrinding to a minimum so as not to disturb the other half

Manipulation of historical fact is not limited to modern media, it's a function of control all across history. See Shakespeare, Gilgamesh, Ceaser et al.

We're perhaps just in a better position to notice, now.

[Ithoriel]

Given the garbled nonsense some friends have come up with after watching things that were, in my view, reasonably accurate programmes I am increasingly of the opinion that any history is better than no history at all.

[Dr Dave]

Given the garbled nonsense some friends have come up with after watching things that were, in my view, reasonably accurate programmes I am increasingly of the opinion that any history is better than no history at all.

Agreed! Anything is better than nothing - and we don't have to watch it. If it's not up to par simply complain to the programme makers - I do! The BBC subtly removing Germany from WW2 and replacing them with Nazis is a really frustrating.

My dear departed mother always blamed Errol Flynn for her 4% history mark! 

[DanJ]

History on TV....... :-

If it purports to be a documentary take it with a pinch of salt depending on channel and revisionist/reactionary nature of the producer/director – about 1% of programming falls into this area.

If it is branded as general history and presented by a well known 'face' take with very large pinch of salt as the program will be trying to make it 'interesting' for the common people (who won't watch it anyway) – about 4% of programs fall into this area.

If it's marketed as 'historical drama' get out the beer and crisps and hope to be entertained by a cross between East Enders and Game of Thrones, because any actual historical content will be a fortuitous accident – the remaining 95% programming.

However I don't find the way TV treats history as infuriating as the way all channels treat sports like climbing.  Inevitably any climbing shown on TV will be a hapless presenter being dragged up an easy climb and spending the whole time saying how hard/scary/dangerous it is.

[Leman]

Are you old enough to remember the BBC live broadcast of the climbing of the Old Man of Hoy. It was one of the most exciting things I can remember from childhood. On a plus point, when the Beeb made the dramatisation of Mons in 2014 they did admit that they had trouble finding a good location and that their eventual choice was very much a compromise (wrong sort of bridge, too many trees etc), but I felt gratified that they had taken the trouble to recognise that and I enjoyed the programme all the more for it.

[DanJ]

Are you old enough to remember the BBC live broadcast of the climbing of the Old Man of Hoy. It was one of the most exciting things I can remember from childhood.

Just, it's one of my earliest TV memories, I remember being glued to the TV.  Many years later I spent the winter doing some serious training and went to Hoy to climb it, unfortunately we were at the beginning of the season and it was plastered in sleet for three days, after which we got bored and went elsewhere.  Probably just as well, as it's the scariest thing I've ever considered climbing.

[Bren]

My two main peeves in this respect:

1. Archers being given the order to "FIRE". 

2. Exploding cannon balls in pre-exploding cannon ball time periods. 

Upon seeing either of these, my Mrs will immediately leave the room shaking her head as she knows a tirade is about to ensue, generally labelling all BBC, ITV etc. script writers as r****d, f***t**d vermin who should be euthanized before they can pollute the gene pool.