History Documentaries: No more acting, please.

[gnostic]

I love history. Love reading them, from actual sources or where professionals, like professors, historians, archaeologists or anthropologists write about history.

And usually, I like watching history documentaries, especially if they are accurate and informative, but I don't like many of them made in the last 15 years.

The problem with recent documentaries on history are the needs to dramatize them - reenactments. These new types of documentaries have putting actors and actresses trying "to act" or re-live the scenes. The acting are often poor and very distracting.

Nothing is more appalling than watching a bunch of people acting like prehistorical people, like Neanderthal or human cavemen. Or the dramatized versions of ancient Egyptians. The reenactments are often so bad that I would either turn the channel or hide my face.

It cheapened the history they are trying to present.

So these days I avoid watching these history documentaries.

Why do producers do this? Are they trying to put off people?

The most recent history documentary that I have seen was A History of Ancient Britain (hosted by Neil Oliver). In fact, I am watching it now (the 2nd episode, about Neolithic Britain). And it is excellent. No reenactment whatsoever.

Perhaps Neil Oliver's Scottish accent take a little to get used to, but he presented prehistorical Britain intelligently, talking to specialists, showing the sites (dig sites or ruins), artifacts and human remains.

Special effects are also kept to the minimum in Oliver's documentary. Mostly it is speeding a scene here or there, so you'll see clouds moving quickly in the sky, or shadows moving in fast motion. But no computer graphics or CGI.

This is how history should be presented on TV, without all the reenactments.

So for those producers out there:

Please, NO MORE REENACTMENTS in history documentaries!
​

Do you feel the same way?

 

[elmarna]

Like you I have found the" truths" in hystory more facinsteing then the "fiction".
When uncovering the little details that formal hystory found not crutial it gives a "flavor" that let's me see a bigger picture. Filling it in with drama and false emotion to make you interested is not likely to realize in a reasonable way!
Example : I met a very old lady who was a toddler during the cival war. I was young at the time and she was very fond of her survival at Gettysburg Pennsylvania.
While she only remembered vaugely the war, her parents reassured her that her recolection of the picnics on the battle field were true.
"We used to go out on the field with a big blanket and a lunch.
While the soldiers were not of interest as we spent the day watching the activities like you watching T.V. - I was most upset at the noise they made in fireing weapons!"
She never spoke of it with horror. I think because she was so young and her parents were not horrified it became a memory of family more than war.
People were falling down, but she did not associate it with dead.
She did mention the war as - "boring".
While historians may not find it interesting.
I found her facinateing and let the peoples of the town show a different face and perspective to a well known event!
Like I said the truth is more of a interest to me than the drama!

 

[YmirGF]

Do you feel the same way?

I tend to feel the same way, Jimmy, but you have to remember that many people find history to be akin to watching paint peel. I expect that the producers of such documentaries are trying to appeal to a broader audience that is seeking entertainment with a bit of information on the side, like fries or a Coke.

One series I quite enjoyed was on the History Channel a few years back. It was "Documentary and a Movie" wherein the first hour or so would provide a documentary, like what you would prefer, followed by a movie that depicted the same events from the Hollywood pov. The host would often cite the shortcomings and pearls in each. It was always interesting.

 

[Photonic]

If you think about it, the way Schindler's List was, was FAR more appealing than all the history stuff you watch to most people.

 

[illykitty]

I guess it depends how it's done... If you're listening to someone who'd not a good storyteller, it's going to get boring fast! Also, if done accurately, you can SEE what they're talking about. Describing something doesn't always give you the full picture and leaving it to someone's imagination is quite erronous. Perhaps they just need to hire better actors or perhaps they could make several versions of the documentary (with and without) or you could simply read a book. No bad actors in books.

 

[Gharib]

i agree 100%. if it was something about science then i enjoy the 3d animations and travel through space but it doesn't work with history, the acting part is an eye sore.

 

[not nom]

So for those producers out there:

Please, NO MORE REENACTMENTS in history documentaries!
​

Do you feel the same way?

yes, generally "I would sign your petition"... however, I never saw any one of those charles heston bible flicks, and plan to remedy that one day

 

[gnostic]

I tend to feel the same way, Jimmy, but you have to remember that many people find history to be akin to watching paint peel. I expect that the producers of such documentaries are trying to appeal to a broader audience that is seeking entertainment with a bit of information on the side, like fries or a Coke.

I supposed you're right. Producers are trying to make appealing for the wider audience; audience that have similar attention span of a 4-year-old. When my nephew was 4, he was easily distracted by any brightly colored trinket or toy, one after the other, and he broke our TV remote control, because he kept changing the channels, volume, brightness, etc, until he wore out the buttons. To him, the remote control was a toy.

But I'd still find the acting of such documentary to be appalling. The biggest problem with the reenactment is when they make it central to the entire documentary. The reenactment should be kept to minimal and not dominate the entire show.

 

[gnostic]

if it was something about science then i enjoy the 3d animations and travel through space

Yes, I see what you mean with documentary on astronomy/space. Special effect and CGI work well in science documentary.

but it doesn't work with history, the acting part is an eye sore.

I think it is ok they show little cgi in history documentary, like when they tried to recreate what a building or city might look like. As long they don't overdo, I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Kathryn]

If you think about it, the way Schindler's List was, was FAR more appealing than all the history stuff you watch to most people.

I thought immediately of the FABULOUS and award winning "John Adams" series from HBO. It wasn't a documentary but wow, was it ever good, and from what I recall reading, very true to what we know of that era and John Adams and his family.

 

[gnostic]

Perhaps they just need to hire better actors or perhaps they could make several versions of the documentary (with and without) or you could simply read a book.

Yes, they probably could, but I don't think the budget for documentary is large, so they usually hired someone with little prospects of real acting careers (real as whether it be in the theatres, films, or tv).

I understand what you mean though.

Like I said to eselam, if they want to put reenactment in their documentary, then they should keep it to minimum instead of making it the centrepiece of the entire show.

There was a documentary shown late last year, about the war between Mark Antony and Octavian (later known as Augustus). Don't remember the title of this documentary. It was done like for the entire show. Well at least I think it did, but I don't know for sure, because I gave up watching 1st 10 minutes of it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd prefer there be more history and less acting, but I'm really not that picky.
Although I have seen some very terrible ones that where completely ruined by very lame and corny acting and visuals. Even saying you learned something is a questionable justification because they get so bad.

 

[gnostic]

I'd prefer there be more history and less acting, but I'm really not that picky.

I've become picky.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've become picky.

I watched this one called How Beer Saved the Planet, and for what could have been something cool it was terrible. It had animations that were a step-up above cave men, many claims were true but many of them where stretched, and it seemed to be for those who wouldn't know how to appreciate an intellectual discussion of it.
But apparently beer brewed from duck pond water isn't too bad.

 

[Viker]

I love history. Love reading them, from actual sources or where professionals, like professors, historians, archaeologists or anthropologists write about history.

And usually, I like watching history documentaries, especially if they are accurate and informative, but I don't like many of them made in the last 15 years.

The problem with recent documentaries on history are the needs to dramatize them - reenactments. These new types of documentaries have putting actors and actresses trying "to act" or re-live the scenes. The acting are often poor and very distracting.

Nothing is more appalling than watching a bunch of people acting like prehistorical people, like Neanderthal or human cavemen. Or the dramatized versions of ancient Egyptians. The reenactments are often so bad that I would either turn the channel or hide my face.

It cheapened the history they are trying to present.

So these days I avoid watching these history documentaries.

Why do producers do this? Are they trying to put off people?

The most recent history documentary that I have seen was A History of Ancient Britain (hosted by Neil Oliver). In fact, I am watching it now (the 2nd episode, about Neolithic Britain). And it is excellent. No reenactment whatsoever.

Perhaps Neil Oliver's Scottish accent take a little to get used to, but he presented prehistorical Britain intelligently, talking to specialists, showing the sites (dig sites or ruins), artifacts and human remains.

Special effects are also kept to the minimum in Oliver's documentary. Mostly it is speeding a scene here or there, so you'll see clouds moving quickly in the sky, or shadows moving in fast motion. But no computer graphics or CGI.

This is how history should be presented on TV, without all the reenactments.

So for those producers out there:

Please, NO MORE REENACTMENTS in history documentaries!
​

Do you feel the same way?

For things like the History Channel it's all bout ratings and driving sales of sponsors.

I still watch sometimes because it is entertainment I suppose.

 

[gnostic]

For things like the History Channel it's all bout ratings and driving sales of sponsors.

True, but sad.

 

[gnostic]

But apparently beer brewed from duck pond water isn't too bad.

That sounds....ghastly. *shudder*