 |
early man ventures out for some D.I.Y sushi (source: History Channel) |
Yesterday the History Channel aired the first two episodes of their six part, twelve hour long series called, Mankind: The Story of All of Us. The goal of the show is to weave a history yarn, bridging the time between the creation of the universe, humanity's evolution and development, and finally end in modern times after the foundation of America. Along the way the viewer will be treated to historically accurate scenes of ancient men and women working, fighting, and eking out an existence, while celebrated historians like Dr. Oz and Brian Williams add their wisdom. I'm kidding about them being historians. For those who don't know, Dr. Oz is a celebrity surgeon/medical good guy and Brian Williams is the newsanchor for NBC - one of the last few honest newsmen.
Look, truthfully I'm a big history dork who loves stuff like this. I love good CG battles and Egyptian chariots and Spartan warriors and all that stuff. I love video clips of world sites and I love it when history shows depict Greek temples fully painted - which they most certainly were. I love the big emotional swell of music and narration that makes you feel so damn proud to be a human being! YEAH. But, the show is not without criticism. And no it's not because they're essentially doing The Cable TV History of Our World...
lousy, idea stealing, well funded....
For starters the idea of condensing at least 10,000 years of human achievement into twelve hours is a bit extreme. To put things in perspective, I've recorded about five and a half hours and I've only reached the end of the Middle Kingdom. Mike Duncan's venerable The History of Rome podcast took about 75 hours to cover about 1000 years of JUST Roman history. So how can the History Channel manage to accurately tell our shared history in such a short amount of time? Why not do seasons of the show? Like Season 1 is Prehistory to the end of Antiquity, Season 2 is Rome and China to the Dark Ages and so on. It's not like they don't have the money or the viewers. By doing it this way, they could effectively weave a story by including more of the famous characters through history and really bring out the interesting details. Instead they present a whirlwind tour that moves too fast to actually learn anything of any substance. I'm a big fan of the expression "whatever gets people interested in history" , and this show has the potential to do that, but right now it's still really fluffy history...and it doesn't help that The History Channel has lost much of its educational credibility over the last couple of years by promoting shows like Ancient Aliens (which is silly but I love it) and Pawn Stars (which I totally love). These shows are pure entertainment and any learning that occurs is a side effect.
Also as a purely cosmetic criticism, I hated that the Neolithic actors were essentially beautiful people with sparkling perfect white teeth, smeared with strategically placed mud to make them look dirty. Is it too much to hire some average looking actors? I've never heard of the "farming mother" theory before but I can tell you this: she most certainly did not look like that. Just a little annoying detail.
Mankind is definitely worth watching - I know I'll be. But keep in your head that it should be treated as an amuse-bouche for our history feast. Light and tasty, it's not meant to fill you up, but rather to interest you in staying for the main course: Filet du Podcast History.
Also if anybody works for the History Channel and is reading this you should totally hire me and I'll never criticize you again. Ok thanks.