tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post7839449218909317255..comments2023-11-04T01:41:23.277+00:00Comments on Memorabilia Antonina: Historical consultantsTony Keenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-41129826652173687372008-07-23T09:57:00.000+01:002008-07-23T09:57:00.000+01:00Thanks for the interesting comments. I think ther...Thanks for the interesting comments. <BR/><BR/>I think there's a question over where one draws the line. On the one hand, getting Tiberius Gracchus on television is undoubtedly an achievement. But the price of that is a simplified version that excises his brother (which confused friends who hadn't done any Roman history since school, but remembered that Gracchi came in pairs). Is that price too high? I'm not sure I have the answer to that. Though I am certain that my answer would be different if I was personally involved in the programme to that from a consumer's perspective. <BR/><BR/>I don't feel that <I>Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall</I> is the worst of the drama-documentary genre by a long stretch - it's a lot better than <A HREF="http://tonykeen.blogspot.com/search/label/Hannibal" REL="nofollow">the Hannibal programmes in 2005 and 2006</A>, which seriously distorted the Second Punic War (and I say that not just because I feel the elder Publius Scipio deserves more credit than he gets for a decision that frustrated Hannibal's whole game plan and made the war winnable by Rome). But I still feel that, by its nature, the drama-documentary actualizes in a way that talking heads don't. This sort of came up in the <I>In Our Time</I> edition on Tacitus a couple of weeks ago. Catherine Edwards commented that the TV <I>I Claudius</I> actualized Tacitus' reported rumours. Melvyn Bragg said that is in Graves as well, which it is and isn't. Yes, Graves picks particular versions at times, but nevertheless, his novel is Claudius' view of what happened, whilst television presents what appears to be an objective and definitive version.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the main thrust of my post was to correct the notion that people often have (not least because programme makers like to imply it) that the authority of the consultant guarantees the authority of the programme. Which it doesn't (the flip side of which is that the consultant can't be blamed for the programme's error). A certain amount of realism is necessary in both viewer and, as I'm sure you know, consultant. A consultant in the end must be aware of where they can and can't make a difference (I think this was Kathleen Coleman's problem with <I>Gladiator</I> - she seems to have expected too much).Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-57494998447608144222008-07-23T08:28:00.000+01:002008-07-23T08:28:00.000+01:00I broadly agree with this.. though I am a bit more...I broadly agree with this.. though I am a bit more upbeat. Its certainly true that the historical consultant doesnt get to make the kind of programme that they would want to make. They get to help the programme makers make a better programme of the sort they want to make. So long as I think they are responsible, well informed and committed, I am likely to go along with that....On Rome Rise and Fall, I still feel pleased that a large popular audience came face to face with Tiberius Gracchus (and with some of the issues surrounding his actions) for the first time ever I would guess! <BR/><BR/>The BBC guys I worked with were well read. When a tv company rings up, I ALWAYS ask them what books they have read on the subject. If they cant name one it's bye bye. The Rise and Fall team passed with flying colours. That said, they remain (paradoxically) over committed to 'accuracy' in a rather narrow sense. On the opening credits, oe of the changes I fought for was the removal of ...'This account has been VERIFIED by historian'. <BR/>Mary (Beard).marybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00345620258235386263noreply@blogger.com