Entertainment For Lively Minds
Auntie you are spoiling us
If anyone has been wondering if there's anything worth watching on telly recently (a question that seems to arise with some frequency both here and in the pages of the Daily Mail, among many other forums), may I heartily recommend two superlative programmes still running, though about to finish. Last night we watched the final episode of the three part documentary The Normans, which was as good as any history programme I've seen in the last decade or more. Robert Bartlett tells a story of a people who had an influence on the world that was far greater than I'd ever imagined, an influence that endures today. It's a great presentation of an enthralling story. Last episode will be available on the iplayer for another week, and here it is.
The other programme is Britain By Bike, which gained some unexpected publicity owing to the review of it by that vile reptile AA Gill. If a few people have watched it because of that, then it hasn't been all bad, because it's a superb series. Clare Balding cycles around various parts of the country using a series of guides written about 60 years ago by one Harold Briercliff, visiting some of the places along the route, talking to interesting people, and providing some social history. One of the interviewees as a delightful 92-year-old lady who is the last surviving founder member of Briercliff's cycling club. There's some stuff about cycling, like visits to bike factories which were among Europe's biggest after the war - but you don't have to be interested in cycling to enjoy it. I heartily recommend Britain By Bike, all five episodes (one more to come) of which are still available on the iplayer for another couple of weeks.
End of Public Service Broadcast Announcement.
- More from Rosbif.
- Login or register to post comments
-
The vile reptile
I believe Mr Gill (BTW, How does he introduce himself ?? - what a cunt) & Jeremy Clarkson are close buddies.
fancy.
The Normans.
Haven't seen the last one yet, but I thought it was brilliant.
Proper grown-up history, told by a real expert with a 'radio face.'
I love seeing grizzled old blokes on the TV - it gives me hope.
Saw the Normans part 3 in the wee small hours
thank god for the Iplayer. Can only agree with Rosbif and Adman, the whole series has been fantastic, what the BBC does best.
And there's more
Totally agree that The Normans was great. So too was Dan Snow's series on Norman Walks that accompanied it. I wasn't so taken with Britain by Bike, as I found it all a little, erm, pedestrian.
But the BBC really has been spoiling us recently: Sherlock was fantastic; the recent series of Dr Who was really very good; the Wild Swimming programme with Alice Roberts was fascinating; I like the re-styled Match of the Day 2 (though its big brother is still painfully smug); A History of the World in 100 Objects on Radio 4 is worth every penny of my licence fee for this year on its own; the Saturday and Sunday afternoon sports programmes on 5 Live are consummately professional; Mayo & Kermode continue to produce a great weekly film programme on 5 Live; Radio 6 is consistently enjoyable; my kids love the Sunday evening programmes on Radio 1; etc. etc. etc.
I don't think people who complain about the BBC realise what they'd be missing if it went. On the other hand maybe they want a non-stop drip-feed of X Factor and Big Brother, enlivened every now and then by Harry Hill's TV Burp, which is just about the only original thing that ITV produces that is worth watching.
Who Do You Think You Are
Always interesting, even if the subject is a tosspot. Last night Alexander Armstrong wanted to find his posh ancestors and got more than he bargained for.
Normally the subjects get back to a few generations of robbers, thieves and vagabonds. Alexander got back as far as 1066. To William the Conqueror. A direct ancestor. Blimey!
Now
that's posh.
I'd guess that his compadre Ben Miller, on the other hand, is more likely to be of Saxon stock.
I was surprised he didn't utter
Kill them!!
I was very into compiling the family tree at one point...
...until I realised that one little mistake on a piece of paper, one face-saving white lie about who the real father might be (well, back then, they were relatively unlikely to put "milkman") and the whole enterprise comes crashing down. So I gave up.
Normans
was excellent, and I really enjoyed the "Modern Masters" series on Matisse, Dali, Warhol and Picasso - very interesting take on each artist. The only problem was the awful presenter, he should have been fronting Blue Peter - a patronising, simpering Tony Blair lookalike.
Wasn't Andrew Graham Dixon available? He should be presenting all of the BBC's Arts coverage!
Agree with all above
And have great affection for "The Hotel Inspector" on Channel 5, which is odd because I normally avoid programmes featuring "real people" like the plague. Alex Polizzi is marvellous.
I've said it before...
...and I'll say it again, the BBC is fantastic value for money. For 40p per day you get the best raido on the planet and some of the best TV being produced today. You also get the website and iPlayer.
I'm constantly amazed at people who feel the need to attack it.
Quite often
The attacks come from people who may have a vested interest in knocking the BBC. The Daily Mail publishers own about 20% of ITN and also stations like The Performance.Channel. News International not only publishes the Times, Sun and News of the World but also owns about 40% of BSkyB and 17% of ITV. Richard Desmond not only publishes the Daily and Sunday Express and the Star but also OK magazine. He is happy to use these to promote his new ownership of Five but less keen to associate them with Red Hot TV and Television X which he also owns.
I ditched Sky a few months back and every now and again get a call asking me to go back. When I said no to their latest half-price offer the charming Scottish man at the other end of the line asked why not and I said "Rupert Murdoch". His reply? "But Rupert Murdoch has nothing to do with Sky." That chap will go far in that organisation.
Beebleaters
The people who bleat about the beeb are generally in commercial organisations who have to try to balance producing lowest denominator crap which sells with quality which might not. Happily, I mean HAPPILY the Beeb can produce a lot of quality (but sadly some crap too...) as they are protected from such realities. And a good thing too. I would willingly pay more for it. Actually, I don't know why Word doesn't charge for the website. I'd willingly pay for that too. Quality again, you see.
Attack
The main argument 'against' the BBC is not really about the quality of the programming, it's about the pernicious imposition of a poll tax on broadcasting. You can go to jail for not respecting the right of the BBC to be the gatekeeper of television in this country. That makes the arguments about Rupert Murdoch's so-called power and influence all the more ridiculous. Whatever his faults, Rupert can't actually force you to buy his product, while the BBC can.
All the stuff about the quality of programmes is only part of the argument. The civil liberties issue, that is, the right to own a TV without having to subsidise the BBC, is much more significant.
I can see your point
But a BBC funded by any other method would be a very different beast.
If it were funded out of general taxation then it would be more subject to government control or at least the suspicion of it. If it were funded by advertising it would be probably be less adventurous and, because it would draw advertising from the existing commercial channels, I'm not sure the rest of the broadcasters would welcome this. And, if it were funded, PBR style, by telethons and voluntary donations it would be even more handicapped when competing against the multinational giants than it already is.
And to what end? The BBC keeps up the standards of home-grown TV and radio and forces ITV and the rest to produce quality programmes. Yes, the executives are taking the p*** with their salaries and perks. What is the point of Alan Yentob? We can all carp. But, personally, 40p a day (or whatever it is) is a very small price to pay for all that I get in return.
Don't mess with it. You'll miss it when it's gone.
The Normans
I thought it was marvellous and it was so refreshing to once again see someone who knew his subject talking to camera and not some celebrity that a producer thought would be needed as its face if the programme was to gather any sort of audience.
The aquaduct?
A slight qualification on The Normans
I confess to being a bit disappointed with The Normans. Don't get me wrong - what we saw was great, but three episodes were simply not enough to cover the whole of this story. I wonder if those at the BBC got cold feet at commissioning anything over 3 episodes on such an 'unsexy' subject.
My main gripe was that the whole of the Norman dynasty in England post William I was dismissed in a single sentence - simply that the Plantagenets took over in 1154. That's 65 years of really quite interesting history: William Rufus's conflict with the church, his building of Westminster Hall, his mysterious and violent death; Henry I's consolidation of power, his 'reverse conquest' of Normandy and imprisonment of Robert Curthose, the development of the exchequer, the White Ship disaster; Stephen's seizing of the throne, the 'Anarchy' and the ultimate settlement with Henry Plantagenet. All unmentioned. Could there not have been a fourth episode?
If a fraction of the airtime that is constantly spent on Henry the bloody Eighth was used to illuminate these less documented periods I, for one, would be very happy.