Civilisations BBC 2

[Serial_Apologist]

- I've ranted about this before; I don't think that it is "a minor, very pedantic point" - it's a matter of clarity of communication.

But probably a sin I've committed god knows how many times, I have to admit!

[Richard Tarleton]

A pedant writes:
Whatever the grammatical or customary niceiites, here, I would guess the majority of viewers would take 'the late 1400s' to mean the last couple of decades of the 15th century. Pedant or no, it would never occur to me that the phrase intends 'the latter part of the decade 1400-1410'.

The late 1820s? The late 1960s? Why are 00s any different?

[gurnemanz]

Olusoga remains nevetherless streets above the other presenters in this series, in my estimation, and I hope we get to see lots more of him.

I agree. He makes his points without imposing his presence to quite to the extent that the other two tend to.

[Ferretfancy]

I hope whoever they are who train people for this sort of skill take heed from Mr Olusoga, who for me is by far the best presenter we've had for as long as I can remember on TV.

His series on the history of a single house in Liverpool was the very best TV, enlightening, well structured, and most importantly deeply compassionate. Wonderful stuff.

[Stunsworth]

I thought that Japanese painting of cracked ice was astonishing in its minimalism. I’d never seen it before and it looked as if it belonged in the Tate rather than the British Museum.

[Serial_Apologist]

I thought that Japanese painting of cracked ice was astonishing in its minimalism. I’d never seen it before and it looked as if it belonged in the Tate rather than the British Museum.

I was thinking of it as parallel with the late paintings of Turner - but I think the Japanese work was earlier?

[Stunsworth]

I was thinking of it as parallel with the late paintings of Turner - but I think the Japanese work was earlier?

It was - late 18th century.

[Serial_Apologist]

It was - late 18th century.

Thanks, Stunsworth - within 50 years or thereabouts, I guess, then.

[Belgrove]

This was the best programme so far. There was a natural and ordered argument to Olusoga's essay that complemented the selected images. The programme was devoid of the directorial errors and peccadillos that marred Beard's episodes. Olusoga is an engaging and interesting guide, a calm and unobtrusive presence in contrast to the distracting writhings of Schama.

Beard hosted the revamped BBC 2 arts programme Front Row last night, replacing the miscast Giles Coren. She was not successful, appearing uneasy throughout. Why don't they just stick with the tried and tested radio presenters of R4's Front Row?

[BBMmk2]

I thought Giles Coren did a great job in this programme.

[jean]

Beard hosted the revamped BBC 2 arts programme Front Row last night, replacing the miscast Giles Coren. She was not successful, appearing uneasy throughout...

It was awful, wasn't it? The guests seemed very uneasy, too.

[Richard Tarleton]

This was the best programme so far. There was a natural and ordered argument to Olusoga's essay that complemented the selected images. The programme was devoid of the directorial errors and peccadillos that marred Beard's episodes. Olusoga is an engaging and interesting guide, a calm and unobtrusive presence in contrast to the distracting writhings of Schama.

Agreed on all counts - just that the segment near the end on the British in India was inaccurate.

[jean]

A pedant writes:
Whatever the grammatical or customary niceiites, here, I would guess the majority of viewers would take 'the late 1400s' to mean the last couple of decades of the 15th century. Pedant or no, it would never occur to me that the phrase intends 'the latter part of the decade 1400-1410'.

The late 1820s? The late 1960s? Why are 00s any different?

I think they are different because the 'the 1800s' do not automatically end at 1810, in the way that 'the 1820s' end at 1829 and 'the 1960s' at 1969.

Those last two explicitly refer to to a decade, as 'the 1800s' does not.

[Richard Tarleton]

Well - as a historian by training I find it confusing. I'd much rather people talked about "the late xteenth century". But let's all agree to differ. I'm sorry now that I even mentioned it, as it's diverted attention from my main point which was the historical inaccuracy.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well - as a historian by training I find it confusing. I'd much rather people talked about "the late xteenth century". But let's all agree to differ. I'm sorry now that I even mentioned it, as it's diverted attention from my main point which was the historical inaccuracy.

Don't worry Richard; it hasn't.