Customer Reviews

Comp History of Britain

5 star:		(22)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I was one of those who throughout my school history lessons (I'm British btw) - yawned, misspelt essays, forgot important dates and mixed-up defining moments of my home country. It was just not for me, science please. After watching this series, I wish they had DVD's a few years ago!

As soon as I saw the first episode, I went out, took the risk and bought the set. Fantastic. Divided into nice bite size pieces, Simon Schama takes us through the years, actually giving me an understanding and perspective on what happened so long ago, in an entertaining and informative style. Somehow he seems to get huge amounts of information, without you even realising it. I began to understand Britain's role defining parts of world history, for right or wrong.

Boy can he tell a tale and keep you intrigued, it's hard for you not to want to stick the next DVD in, save for not wanting to get through it too soon. But then you do and rapidly get back to the beginning, watching it all again.

Simon has his own style of narrative delivery, twitching and jerking his way when on screen. Most amusing but you can't not be endeared to him and be in awe of his knowledge. Respect.

Perhaps not for the history boffin? Not at all, my girlfriend is history nut and she loves it. It has pride of place in my collection.

Keep up the good work BBC, your're unique, paid for by the people, for the people. And advertising free.

Everyone LOVES this series.... but me. Yes, it's a fine ambition to "bring characters to life" but Schama does so without enough chronological context. His prose is florid in the extreme and as a screen presence I'm sorry to say I found him terribly annoying. His melodramtic delivery is so full of gulping pauses and overwraught phrasing it's maddening. Since the bulk of the series covers a period well before photography we are subjected to animal imagery ad nausim. When Schama tells us Eleanor of Aquitaine spoon fed her feelings to her children, we see a bird regurgitating into the mouths of its young. (And he never mentions she was queen of France before queen of England?) I realize I'm in the minority, but I found this set a great dissapointment. (I do hope Mr. Schama doesn't read this-- but there you are.)

It is not about Britain but about Simon Schama [however the last hour of Volume 5 is interesting]. If you still have some doubts: just compare this documentary with Mark Twain by Ken Burns or Thomas Jefferson also by Ken Burns, and judge by yourself.

With anticipated glee, we bought this DVD series as a Christmas gift for our family; however, as we went through each of the 5 DVD's, we became increasingly disappointed in Schama's "history." So much of his presentation seems to be "on the fringe" and not central to the mainstream of the basic history of Britain. Also, as others have pointed out, Schama seems intent on presenting the "gore" of battles, tragedies, etc. He also seems fascinated with sex and the eccentric too much. We just felt that we were not getting the fullness of the basic story of Britain's history. It was very disappointing, and we would not recommend it.

Like others, I was hoping that I had found a definitive, unbiased and honest history of Britain here. Unfortunately, this series is no more enlightening than listening to a dogmatic university prof. where you hear the same-old slant over and over again.
That is to be expected when enrolling in a uni course but this is telivsion - and it should be presented better.
Aside from this, the man is just plain wrong for TV himself as he is visually nauseating to watch for so many hours. Every time he speaks he circulates his shoulders (one forward and one back)and thrusts his chin toward the camera. Maybe this is a pysical deformity and I should be more sensitive. But I am sorry, for the money it costs to buy this thing I have to say it should be more watchable; it can make it really difficult to concentrate on what is being said. This visual annoyance is not at all helped by the high class tone and smugness of his speech in which his sarcastic delivery has the effect of talking down to the viewers and not, as perhaps he had imagined, win them over to his point of view without question.
Regretfully, low points for style are not made up for with outstanding substance. It's a good general refresher of English history so long as you are smart enough to listen for the missing facts. Some of my main criticisms include his presenting myth as honest history in the case of the whereabouts and final resting place of English King Harold's body after his defeat by Norman King William The Conqueror in 1066. He also refers to this period as "early British history." Just saying that reveals his historical ineptitude and/or basic arrogant attitude to the earlier Celtic and Celtic-Romano British history. On that note he does even mention the word 'Celtic' once when he briefly covers that enormous period of history. Every thing is either Iron Age this or Ion Age that - even Queen Boudica is an Iron Age Queen - We are fairly certain she didn't speak English so I guess she could only have spoken 'Iron Age' as her first language. Of course, the words 'Anglo' and 'Saxon' are used over and over again to describe the next era of history following the Celtic and Celtic-Roman ages.
For anyone who misses the point here, answer this question: Why doesn't he (and other revisionist historians) simply refer to a Saxon king as a Dark-Age king or Dark Age Britain instead of Saxon Britain?