Before moving to Austin, I rarely, if not ever, watched PBS. I used the on-screen guide to flip through channel listings, and I hardly ever saw anything that interested me. It was always something like “This Old House” or government talk shows. For some reason, my interest in PBS programming has skyrocketed since living here. As I flip through the on-screen listings, there always seems to be something interesting. Right now, I am watching a program series called “Roman Empire: The First Century.” The producers also did the Islam series I liked so much. The style is steady and paced. It deluges you with information that draws you into the story and connects you with the characters.
I wouldn’t call it a true documentary, but it appears closer in style than other programs I’ve seen on commerical channels. I’ve been frustrated in the past by programs that relied more on sensationalism than storytelling to interest viewers. (The very thing I hate about tv news.) One that comes to mind was on The Discovery Channel a couple of years ago. If I remember correctly, the show producers followed a female scholar as she uncovered something “revolutionary” about Nefertiti. There was so little content, the show seemed to drag on through dramatizations and weak theories. The show relied on the untested theory from one scholar and reenactments to portray it. After watching about 1/2 an hour, I couldn’t watch anymore. It was like the show scratched the surface of all the history it was dealing with. It was like the producers barely did any research and instead relied on the scholar as if her truth was the only truth. But I think those kinds of programs walk a risky line. The purpose of these programs is to inform, which implies that they are balanced. Viewers expect balance, and they are led to believe that the theories they see are absolutely true. What if they aren’t? All theories have detractors. Part of the wonderful part of learning is hearing the debate between scholars, whether it be history, theology, economics, anthropology or science, and making the decision about thr truth for yourself. It’s kind of like listening to politicians and deciding who to vote for.
Ah well. Commerical TV has to do something to get viewers. Sometimes the programs appeal to the lowest common denominator. They try to answer questions than would be almost impossible to do so within an hour– (broad generalizations about the ancient world come to mind). They piece together weak theories and try to make them sound strong– (our understanding of human evolution has come a long way, but the Discovery channel series made it sound as if it is rock solid and unchallenged on many fronts, and I’m not talking about the so-called Intelligent Design theory. I’m talking archaeology itself). They treat psuedoscience as a legitimate topic– (UFO shows? Please).
Okay, okay, enough criticism, especially since my ravings are not backed up by specific examples. I’m relying on my vague recolections rather than on solid facts, which is exactly what I hate about the programs I’m writing against. Talk about being a hyprocite.
It’s better to concentrate on what I like. But it’s so hard for me to articulate what I LIKE about historical programming. I like the storytelling. History is just a story, and good programs are able to spin that story into a wonderful tale. Good stories don’t need added drama. They don’t need the producers to add anything more to them. They are already exciting. So what makes a good story? Good characters. Look at some of the most engaging historical figures. I can think of dozens of figures who are incredible characters. They are such good characters, they have become the source of inspiration for books, film, and fictional television. They are hardly boring, and their lives and actions are rich and varied. They inspire us. That’s the key to a good show and a good documentary. The Roman program I’m watching… characters like Augustus, Marc Antony, Tiberius, and Caligula draw us in, whether it be for their bravery, superhumaness, or incredible cruelty and eccentricities. What producers need to do is weave their tales into a conherant story. We should bring together the story with multiple voices from the past and the present, vivid images, and a soundtrack that compliments rather than overpowers the story. Easier said than done, right?
I would agree, based on the poor quality programs I’ve seen. But fortunately, there are enough producers out there who do get it. And they weave together some wonderful tales. The “Islam” and “Roman Empire” series I’ve seen are wonderful. So is one called “The Appalachians.” So, if you’re channel surfing and land on PBS, give it a chance. The programming is so much better than some of the much hyped programming on commerical tv.