Civilisations BBC 2

[Serial_Apologist]

....David Olusoga....watched a couple of days ago....I thought he would start in Benin, and so he did....he was good....I didn't have to will it to end as I do with SS and MB.

....still not ringing any bells for me though....and no big questions left hanging....

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.

[gradus]

... far more worrying is his decision to keep the top two (possibly three) buttons of his shirt undone. Not to be ageist - but - at that age, it is not becoming, Dr Schama...

.

No, surely the newly-dapper Mr Schama in a far from ill-fitting, though short-ish jacket of an expensive suit. A mistake to button both on a two button jacket though, top button only.

[Serial_Apologist]

No, surely the newly-dapper Mr Schama in a far from ill-fitting, though short-ish jacket of an expensive suit. A mistake to button both on a two button jacket though, top button only.

When he becomes animated, the effect is of a sackful of potatoes, the contents of which are about to get out!

Short jackets on men seem to be the current fashion, just as they were in the early Mod era. To me they look over-tight and constrictive of movement, especially when buttoned. A good jacket should end halfway down the body between shoulders and shoes. The cream sports jacket Schama wears at other times for these programmes looks fine and proportionate.

[vinteuil]

No, surely the newly-dapper Mr Schama in a far from ill-fitting, though short-ish jacket of an expensive suit. A mistake to button both on a two button jacket though, top button only.

... it's the too-many-open-buttons of his shirt that distresses me.

.

[jean]

It's what's underneath his shirt that I find hard to stomach...

[Stunsworth]

- hugely informative and entertaining. (That bit about Cellini's Perseus turning Michelangelo's David into stone had me guffawing!)


- Absolutely! I cannot begin to comprehend why MB has agreed to this sort of treatment (or, possibly, suggested it herself): her earlier TV work had none of this sort of ... ahem> ... footage. Irrelevant and very distracting.

The David/Perseus had me laughing too - and the look on David’s face, priceless.

The shoes have have been a running motif in many of MB series. I can’t say it bothers me in the least.

[Serial_Apologist]

The David/Perseus had me laughing too - and the look on David’s face, priceless.

The shoes have have been a running motif in many of MB series. I can’t say it bothers me in the least.

I love it when unconscious puns come up on this forum!

[Stunsworth]

I love it when unconscious puns come up on this forum!

Possibly not unconscious of course.

[greenilex]

Gents, once again I have to remind you that Schama’s female fans appreciate a glimpse of chest.

[jean]

Possibly not unconscious of course.

As mine wasn't, but nobody commented on it...

[BBMmk2]

As usual, Simon Schama was brilliant in the execution of this programme. Very interesting to read about the various items in the programme.

[Richard Tarleton]

Overall I enjoyed the programme last night - but, in the one area I did know something about, found David Olusoga just plain wrong.

Zoffany arrived in India, as he said, in 1783, and the cockfight picture depicts an actual event in 1784 at the court of the Nawab of Oudh. It depicts, he said, the early relationship between the English and the Indian princes, enjoying socialising, with easy informality, with no hint of the distrustful relationship that was to develop in the 19th century. Erm - Clive had conquered Bengal in 1757, Battle of Plassey, following the Black Hole of Calcutta, and Warren Hastings had been governor general since 1774, expropriating, it was alleged, a variety of Indian princes including the very Begums of Oudh (or as 1066 And All That puts it, the Doldrums of Oudh, two very old women without any teeth). He was to be impeached for all this between 1788 and 1794 (and acquitted), Edmund Burke gave one of his 3-hour speeches attacking Warren Hastings on the subject of the unfortunate Nabob [Nawab] of Arcot's Debts.... And let's not start on Tipu Sultan...

As for the painting itself, I think it shows anything but easy informality. Distinctly anxious-to-please expressions on the faces of the Indians, who are in full rig, unlike the easy informality of the English officers in their shirtsleeves.....no doubt who has the upper hand here. The "mistress" of that redcoat on the left looks distinctly underage.....

Basically, the "distrustful" relationship was well under way by the mid 18th century, and got steadily worse in the next 100 years until the Mutiny, when the British government tok control from the Company.

A minor, very pedantic point but one which as a historian drives me potty - DO kept referring to "the late 1400s" when he meant the late 15th century. The late 1400s are the latter part of the decade 1400-1410, followed by the 1410s, 1420s etc.....)

A birding note - nice how many locations included shots of black kites swooping about - I counted at least 3. And DO did not mention one of the most interesting things about Zoffany, namely that he was the first and last Royal Academician, as William Dalrymple points out, to have also been a cannibal - when his ship was wrecked on the voyage home on the Andaman Islands, they drew lots and ate one of the crew, a bit like WS Gilbert's Yarn of the Nancy Bell .

[Serial_Apologist]

Overall I enjoyed the programme last night - but, in the one area I did know something about, found David Olusoga just plain wrong.

Zoffany arrived in India, as he said, in 1783, and the cockfight picture depicts an actual event in 1784 at the court of the Nawab of Oudh. It depicts, he said, the early relationship between the English and the Indian princes, enjoying socialising, with easy informality, with no hint of the distrustful relationship that was to develop in the 19th century. Erm - Clive had conquered Bengal in 1757, Battle of Plassey, following the Black Hole of Calcutta, and Warren Hastings had been governor general since 1774, expropriating, it was alleged, a variety of Indian princes including the very Begums of Oudh (or as 1066 And All That puts it, the Doldrums of Oudh, two very old women without any teeth). He was to be impeached for all this between 1788 and 1794 (and acquitted), Edmund Burke gave one of his 3-hour speeches attacking Warren Hastings on the subject of the unfortunate Nabob [Nawab] of Arcot's Debts.... And let's not start on Tipu Sultan...

As for the painting itself, I think it shows anything but easy informality. Distinctly anxious-to-please expressions on the faces of the Indians, who are in full rig, unlike the easy informality of the English officers in their shirtsleeves.....no doubt who has the upper hand here. The "mistress" of that redcoat on the left looks distinctly underage.....

I was thinking that, too.

Basically, the "distrustful" relationship was well under way by the mid 18th century, and got steadily worse in the next 100 years until the Mutiny, when the British government tok control from the Company.

A minor, very pedantic point but one which as a historian drives me potty - DO kept referring to "the late 1400s" when he meant the late 15th century. The late 1400s are the latter part of the decade 1400-1410, followed by the 1410s, 1420s etc.....)

A birding note - nice how many locations included shots of black kites swooping about - I counted at least 3. And DO did not mention one of the most interesting things about Zoffany, namely that he was the first and last Royal Academician, as William Dalrymple points out, to have also been a cannibal - when his ship was wrecked on the voyage home on the Andaman Islands, they drew lots and ate one of the crew, a bit like WS Gilbert's Yarn of the Nancy Bell .

Well, many thanks for putting the record straight for us Richard - blemishes on an otherwise highly enjoyable programme. 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.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

A minor, very pedantic point but one which as a historian drives me potty - DO kept referring to "the late 1400s" when he meant the late 15th century. The late 1400s are the latter part of the decade 1400-1410, followed by the 1410s, 1420s etc.....)

- 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.

[kernelbogey]

- 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.

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'.

Sadly, folk will take the most obvious meaning to be true.

As with my gripe about 'Don't drive tired' on a Highways Agency electronic sign: ungammatical (IMV) maybe, yet perfetly clear.