Tutankhamun.

[Anchorman]

OK, Poetic licence - I get that. But I've just spent an hour watching the first episode of "Tutankhamun" (ITV, Sunday). Suffice it to say the liquid refreshment I now imbibe is for medicinal purposes only. There were so many glaring errors that I lost count, and the portrayal of Carter was terrible, that of Flinders Petrie disgraceful, and the glossing over of Davies - Dubbed "Vandal of the Nile" by his contemporaries - shameful. Rant over........

[Brownie]

 .  Hee hee, I watched most of it, on ITV Hub as Silent Witness tempted me more.  I wandered into the kitchen to do a few things and when I came back, it was over.  Very unexpectedly, my husband was enthusiastic and said I ought to wind it back to see what I missed but I didn't.  All I can say is I liked some of what I saw but it didn't grip me.  Silent Witness did, nasty though it was.  Well they are both about dead people I suppose.  I had a couple of glasses of red too. weekend indulgence.

[Anchorman]

I suppose it's because I'm an Egyptology nerd, Brownie - but when I see a drama supposedly based on real events, I'd like at least some nod to the historical facts of the era. Still, at least there were no shots of camels climbing pyramids in the background.....

[Humph Warden Bennett]

This should have been a mini series about the real Tutankhamen, the costumes would have been far sexier and we anoraks could have fun spotting all the anachronisms. A bit like a modern version of Land of the Pharoahs, hey, perhaps Joanie could be in it as Tut's scheming grandmother in law?

[Anchorman]

The anoraks wouldn't have had fun, HWB - we'd bee to busy at daggers drawn! The theories surrounding his parentage, predecessor(s), burial, etc, would fill umpteen hours of air time.

[Brownie]

I suppose it's because I'm an Egyptology nerd, Brownie - but when I see a drama supposedly based on real events, I'd like at least some nod to the historical facts of the era. Still, at least there were no shots of camels climbing pyramids in the background.....

Your last comment reminds me of a biscuit barrel my mum had for years (art deco shape), which had camels and pyramids.  It was lovely really, she gave it to me and I broke it  .

During the show, my husband did say at one stage, "Why doesn't he get out his mobile?".
Sometimes I think the producers might as well have stuff like mobiles, yellow lines, Concorde going overhead and other anachronisms in period drama, it could be fun and at least no-one would be spotting the anachronisms.
(My old man is a petrol head and always picks up on cars from the wrong period, maybe with inaccurate number plates.  Whenever a car appears I wait for the comment. Son does the same with musical instruments.)

[Nearly Sane]

This should have been a mini series about the real Tutankhamen, the costumes would have been far sexier and we anoraks could have fun spotting all the anachronisms. A bit like a modern version of Land of the Pharoahs, hey, perhaps Joanie could be in it as Tut's scheming grandmother in law?

I'm still scarred by the memory of The Cleopatras.

[Anchorman]

Aaargh....To be fair, 'The Cleopatras' were only slightly worse than 'The Borgias'. Not by much, though......

[Nearly Sane]

Aaargh....To be fair, 'The Cleopatras' were only slightly worse than 'The Borgias'. Not by much, though......

I think the Borgias was just not very good and Adolfo Celi's accent didn't help. To be fair to The Cleopatras it was an attempt to do something different which didn't come off. There is a reasonable take on it in the link below (Warning: if you are geeky about old TV, site can be addictive)

http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/shows_ci_to_cl.htm#cleopatras

[Anchorman]

I've never really warmed to the Ptolemaic dynasty, NS, but I did watch 'The Cleopatras' back in the day. Yep, different, it most certainly was. The Beeb was trying to recapture the magic of 'I Claudius' with these series....and failed miserably on both occasions.

[Nearly Sane]

Your last comment reminds me of a biscuit barrel my mum had for years (art deco shape), which had camels and pyramids.  It was lovely really, she gave it to me and I broke it  .

During the show, my husband did say at one stage, "Why doesn't he get out his mobile?".
Sometimes I think the producers might as well have stuff like mobiles, yellow lines, Concorde going overhead and other anachronisms in period drama, it could be fun and at least no-one would be spotting the anachronisms.
(My old man is a petrol head and always picks up on cars from the wrong period, maybe with inaccurate number plates.  Whenever a car appears I wait for the comment. Son does the same with musical instruments.)

There are a fair amount of historicals which certainly use anachronistic attitudes and other areas. We have to be careful in thinking that accuracy is something that is the aim of historical dramas. Mel Gibson has been taken to task for the outright impossibilities of Braveheart, but much the same is true of Shakespeare's histories - I.e. they are not history. The very idea of accuracy is something that seems to mean different things at different times, and when you get, as I have seen, complaints about people's dentition, it looks to be fairly pointless.

[Gordon]

I've never really warmed to the Ptolemaic dynasty, NS, but I did watch 'The Cleopatras' back in the day. Yep, different, it most certainly was. The Beeb was trying to recapture the magic of 'I Claudius' with these series....and failed miserably on both occasions.

On the same theme I remember 'The Borgias', which was panned at the time and, iirc, partly because one of the lead actors was difficult to understand since he barely spoke English.

As far as I know neither The Cleopatras nor The Borgias have been repeated.

[Nearly Sane]

I've never really warmed to the Ptolemaic dynasty, NS, but I did watch 'The Cleopatras' back in the day. Yep, different, it most certainly was. The Beeb was trying to recapture the magic of 'I Claudius' with these series....and failed miserably on both occasions.

In part, that's because of the source material, I would say. Graves had already done the work on framing the approach and characters of 'I, Clavdivs' and so it was a straight adaptation, blessed with a stunning cast, and a very clear directorial approach.

Both the Borgias and The Cleopatras were mere attempts to follow on, rather than clear understood decisions about what to do next. I know of a couple of people though who much prefer The Caesars shown in the late 60s to I, Claudius because they see it as more historically accurate.

[Nearly Sane]

On the same theme I remember 'The Borgias', which was panned at the time and, iirc, partly because one of the lead actors was difficult to understand since he barely spoke English.

As far as I know neither The Cleopatras nor The Borgias have been repeated.

Clive James reviews The Borgias amongst other things

http://www.clivejames.com/books/glued/borgias


There have, of course, been 2 different recent TV dramatisations of The Borgias. I've watched the one with Jeremy Irons as Rodrigo, and it has lots of historical 'oddities'.  I am sympathetic to the ideas put forward by J G Meyer on his book on the Borgias suggesting that a lot of the myth, is precisely myth and it's because they are seen through the prism of propagandists that they are painted so black, rather like Richard the Third and Shakespeare.

[Anchorman]

At least 'I claudius' was reasonably true to Graves' two novels, NS - and for anyone who hasn't read them, they're both worth a reasd. Graves never really intended to be historically accurate. Don't even think of starting me on Gibson! Once I saw the synopsis for Braveheart, that was enough for me. I've never watched it.....I value my blood pressure. If a drama is claiming to be historical, it shouldn't be hysterical.......

[wigginhall]

This question of historical accuracy is a bit of a bugger really.   I think  it's OK to do something that isn't accurate, but then this should be indicated really.   For example, a drama showing Queen Victoria having a steamy lesbian affair with a kitchen maid would be OK, as long as it was designated as fiction or fantasy.   But then people will still get upset, I suppose.   Good points about Shakespeare though.    The Romeo and Juliet set in gangland was stunning really. trying to remember the director, but then R & J has never been seen as historical.  Baz Luhrman. 

[Nearly Sane]

Surely we need to understand that all drama is a fiction. Even if we were say to dramatise the Diary of Pepys with effectively just a voiceover and pictures if people doing whatever was voiced, the reading and pictures are interpretations, and the diary itself is an edited fiction of what happened.

[Anchorman]

This question of historical accuracy is a bit of a bugger really.   I think  it's OK to do something that isn't accurate, but then this should be indicated really.   For example, a drama showing Queen Victoria having a steamy lesbian affair with a kitchen maid would be OK, as long as it was designated as fiction or fantasy.   But then people will still get upset, I suppose.   Good points about Shakespeare though.    The Romeo and Juliet set in gangland was stunning really. trying to remember the director, but then R & J has never been seen as historical.  Baz Luhrman. 

Don't even start me on Shakespeare, Wiggs.
The only tragedy  in his execrable 'Macbeth' was his political sycophancy and abject failure to deal with anything remotely resembling truth.......

[wigginhall]

Depends on what you mean by truth.  I didn't think Shakespeare was after historical truth.   In fact, I'm not sure what the point would be in writing a tragedy that was historically accurate.   

[Nearly Sane]

Don't even start me on Shakespeare, Wiggs.
The only tragedy  in his execrable 'Macbeth' was his political sycophancy and abject failure to deal with anything remotely resembling truth.......

But he isn't doing history, he's doing drama.

[Anchorman]

Depends on what you mean by truth.  I didn't think Shakespeare was after historical truth.   In fact, I'm not sure what the point would be in writing a tragedy that was historically accurate.   

Nope.
In Writing Macbeth, he was ignoring the facts in order to crawl to James VI.
Political sycophancy.
The Brummie bard couldn't even remember the name of Macbeth's queen - Gruoch - who acted as regent while Macbeth went to Rome.
And he conveniently glossed over the fact that Macbeth was suceeded, not by Malcolm, but by Lulach.
That means his idea of truth bears no relation to the reality.

[Anchorman]

But he isn't doing history, he's doing drama.

Mope. He was writing fantasy in an attempt to curry favour with James VI.

[Nearly Sane]

Mope. He was writing fantasy in an attempt to curry favour with James VI.

Drama is fantasy, it isn't history as per most of this thread has been pointed out. Whatever the motivation for writing it has no relevance as to whether it is bad or good as drama.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope.
In Writing Macbeth, he was ignoring the facts in order to crawl to James VI.
Political sycophancy.
The Brummie bard couldn't even remember the name of Macbeth's queen - Gruoch - who acted as regent while Macbeth went to Rome.
And he conveniently glossed over the fact that Macbeth was suceeded, not by Malcolm, but by Lulach.
That means his idea of truth bears no relation to the reality.

given his likely 'sources' some of the differences from actual history were already inbuilt. We are talking about Holinshed here which wouldn't really be a proper historical source.

[Maeght]

This question of historical accuracy is a bit of a bugger really.   I think  it's OK to do something that isn't accurate, but then this should be indicated really.   For example, a drama showing Queen Victoria having a steamy lesbian affair with a kitchen maid would be OK, as long as it was designated as fiction or fantasy.

I think if you are referring to an historical figure or incident then it should be factually accurate - otherwise base the story on someone or something made up. In your example why base the story of a Queen having a lesbian affair on a real life Queen rather than a fictitious one? Even if people are told that the story is not accurate a proportion of people will think it is.