Andrew Marr's History of the World

[kernelbogey]

I saw the first episode - and will probably not watch more of it. Marr is a witty and talented presenter but his commentary was shoehorned into spaces between B-movie reconstructions of early man crossing Africa, human sacrifice in Minoan Crete, the taming of the Yangtse river and other poorly re-enacted chunks of history. Almost embarrassing to watch. And the critics seem to have thought the same.

[Serial_Apologist]

I saw the first episode - and will probably not watch more of it. Marr is a witty and talented presenter but his commentary was shoehorned into spaces between B-movie reconstructions of early man crossing Africa, human sacrifice in Minoan Crete, the taming of the Yangtse river and other poorly re-enacted chunks of history. Almost embarrassing to watch. And the critics seem to have thought the same.

Marred, then...

[johnb]

Although I (thankfully) missed the programme it has been thoroughly slated in The Independent.

I might sample it, just to see how bad it really is.

[gurnemanz]

I agree with others on the disappointing quality of Marr's new effort and now understand the scheduling of it. The BBC must have realised it was a bit of turkey and will be able to blame its poor viewing figures on its being up against Downton Abbey. I don't think they would have done that to David Attenborough.

[amateur51]

Andrew Marr isn't exactly the Jacob Bronowski de nos jours, issit?!

[aeolium]

I was trying to think of a historian, rather than a journalist like Marr, who might have done the series well. Simon Schama's mannerisms and over-ripe style drove me to distraction on his last TV series. Perhaps Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, who has written a 2-volume history of the world yet eschews a conventional narrative approach, might have been an interesting choice. Hobsbawm, had he been a good deal younger, or A J P Taylor if he had been alive, would have been entertaining and thought-provoking (though the BBC would never have given Hobsbawm the chance).

John Roberts' world history is a good one, imo.

[amateur51]

I was trying to think of a historian, rather than a journalist like Marr, who might have done the series well. Simon Schama's mannerisms and over-ripe style drove me to distraction on his last TV series. Perhaps Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, who has written a 2-volume history of the world yet eschews a conventional narrative approach, might have been an interesting choice. Hobsbawm, had he been a good deal younger, or A J P Taylor if he had been alive, would have been entertaining and thought-provoking (though the BBC would never have given Hobsbawm the chance).

John Roberts' world history is a good one, imo.

Some interesting choices - I just give thanks that they didn't give it to Whispering Dan Cruickshank

[kernelbogey]

I was trying to think of a historian, rather than a journalist like Marr, who might have done the series well....

It's a co-production with a German (and maybe US) network - and there's also a South African company in the credits. I have a hunch that this isn't 'Andrew Marr's' history but that he was brought in to give the project some credibility. As I say, just a hunch - based on how the whole programme is put together: a kind of disjuncture between the AM bits and the hammy 'reconstructions'. I somehow can't imagine him appearing on a German tv station with his voice overdubbed.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Andrew Marr wasn't the problem with the programme. His two series on the history of Britain in the 20th Century were excellent, and I was really looking forward to a similar format in this new series. However, the terrible "dramatizations" (which replaced the archive film of the British series - for obvious reasons!) were so badly done.

[aeolium]

I have a hunch that this isn't 'Andrew Marr's' history but that he was brought in to give the project some credibility.

I don't think it can be as he's not a historian. One of the reviews mentioned a tie-up with the Discovery Channel but I don't know where the research has come from.

[Pabmusic]

Although I (thankfully) missed the programme it has been thoroughly slated in The Independent.

I might sample it, just to see how bad it really is.

I missed it as well, not intentionally but, having read the Independent report you posted (as well as other posts here), with great relief. I have to watch my blood pressure. The Independent quotes Marr as saying, as an explanation for the disappearance of neanderthals, "It is also probable, I regret to report, that we liked to eat them." What rubbish! Yes, homo sapiens may have eaten other hominids - just as others ate them - but we lived with neanderthals around for at least 20,000 years, so it's hardly likely that cannibalism accounts for their demise. There certainly seems to have been some interbreeding, too. Climate change related to the last Ice Age (the one we're still emerging from) - now that's a more likely explanation. Homo sapiens simply adapted better.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The Independent quotes Marr as saying, as an explanation for the disappearance of neanderthals, "It is also probable, I regret to report, that we liked to eat them." What rubbish! Yes, homo sapiens may have eaten other hominids - just as others ate them - but we lived with neanderthals around for at least 20,000 years, so it's hardly likely that cannibalism accounts for their demise. There certainly seems to have been some interbreeding, too.

To be far to Marr, he did mention these facts, too; the cannibalism was just one of the factors contributing to the disappearance of the Neanderthals.

Climate change related to the last Ice Age (the one we're still emerging from) - now that's a more likely explanation. Homo sapiens simply adapted better.

Don't think he mentioned this, though! Is it because HomSaps adapted to the warmer conditions better than the cold-tolerant Neands?

[Pabmusic]

To be far to Marr, he did mention these facts, too; the cannibalism was just one of the factors contributing to the disappearance of the Neanderthals.


Don't think he mentioned this, though! Is it because HomSaps adapted to the warmer conditions better than the cold-tolerant Neands?

Truth is, we don't know for sure (and the truth is undoubtedly more complicated still), but that is a factor that's usually seen as significant.

[johncorrigan]

I saw the first episode - and will probably not watch more of it. Marr is a witty and talented presenter but his commentary was shoehorned into spaces between B-movie reconstructions of early man crossing Africa, human sacrifice in Minoan Crete, the taming of the Yangtse river and other poorly re-enacted chunks of history. Almost embarrassing to watch. And the critics seem to have thought the same.

Agreed. The two things I learned were: that the Nile had two-way traffic because although it runs South-North, its prevailing winds are North-South; and I didn't realise that the cave hand printers sprayed the paint from their mouths rather than dab their hands into the paint. Other than that it was dull and certainly not a patch on Neil McGregor's radio version.