Herodotus would be.... bemused

by Cliopatria

For your consideration:

THE ALAMO, TROY, KING ARTHUR, ALEXANDER and THE AVIATOR will compete for the seventh annual HARRY AWARD. This year's nominees were selected from among all the historical films of 2004. The HARRY AWARD, named after Herodotus, Greek Father of History, is awarded annually by The History Channel® to the film of the previous year that contributed the most to the public's understanding and appreciation of history. The winner will be announced on Sunday, March 6th
...
The History Channel criteria for selecting the winning film encompasses:
Historical Accuracy
Public and Commercial Criticism
Realism
Educational Value
Audience Response
The film with the highest ranking is given The Harry Award. The Harry Award recipient is selected by The History Channel committee led by our History Channel historian.

The recipient of the first HARRY AWARD was"Saving Private Ryan". Previous winners include:"The Pianist","The Last Samurai" and"Blackhawk Down". [via HNN; emphasis and bullets added]

What was the competition like the year The Last Samurai won? Never mind. The question is: is there any reason why any of the above films should win? Not one of them got a decent review from an historian that I'm aware of. I haven't seen any of them, so I'm just going on reviews and reactions from people who have seen them, but should an award require that a film have enough merit to be, say, used in a history classroom for purposes other than satire and debunking?

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Michael Meo - 3/5/2005

I would venture that the problem is broader than the fact that the so-called History Channel wouldn't know history if it bumped into it.

We have a whole raft of sensationalist popular science magazines ("'Discover," for example) and television channels (The Discovery Channel) that are just as lacking in substantive merit.

Usually it's the public who is blamed for the phenomenon: "We only give the public what they want!"

But the explanation is a swindle, since the material is advertised as science or, in the immediate case mentioned, history.

Rather, I think we're seeing the result of a low level of education at the college level. These yahoos are the folks who got college diplomas but did not actually learn anything. In particular they, like a certain prominent politician from a Southwestern state, don't like to read; certainly not anything challenging.

Not the viewers; it's the producers and broadcasting decision-makers whom I characterize as subliterate.

Michael C Tinkler - 3/4/2005

And Alexander has great costumes and sets; I've heard mixed reviews from ancient warfare people about the battle scenes. I'd show 30 second excerpts, which is what I do with Gladiator (and anything but the arena scenes I show with the sound off!); Gladiator does a creditable job with what Rome looked like c. 180.

Richard L McGaha - 3/4/2005

A point of comment about the History Channel, while I generally find their programs to be middle of the road, an encounter I had with them left me jaded. A couple of years ago they aired a program called "Last Secrets of the Axis" I will spare you the details of it. Needless to say that I was doing my MA Thesis on the main character Karl Haushofer. There is not a lot of good academic literature on him, but what is there is quite good. There is however a lot of garbage on him from conspiracy theorists and occultists. The experts who they had were no one that I had even heard of having done any sort of academic archival based research on the subject. As they were talking, I knew almost exactly which book the expert had gotten his information from. To make a long story short, the factual errors were so egregious as to border on the false. When I sent a very detailed letter outlining these errors along with the source material along with the names of experts who could back me up, I was sent a polite form letter. The letter stated that they stood by their documentary. So yes Jonathan, I agree with you that they do not take a substantive approach to history at all.

Jonathan Dresner - 3/4/2005

I think it's fair to consider Herodotus the progenitor of Western historical writing. You can consider Thucydides the progenitor of good historical writing, if you like, but "Harry" did a lot of the right stuff, particularly compared to the quality of "historical" chronicles and tales before him.

Jonathan Dresner - 3/4/2005

...and my point, insofar as I actually have one, is that the History Channel is a failure as far as taking a substantive approach to history is concerned.

Derek Charles Catsam - 3/4/2005

Not to defend what seems like a craven attampt to capitalize on (semi)popular movies, but I have heard, from a fairly legitimate source, that Alamo is actually not a bad representation as far as history goes. I've also heard, however, that it is a pretty bad movie.
dc

Van L. Hayhow - 3/4/2005

Given the quality of most "historical" movies, the name may be perfect, then.

Jonathan T. Reynolds - 3/4/2005

Well, come on... it's an award given by THE HISTORY CHANNEL fer cryin' out loud. What do you expect?

Miriam Elizabeth Burstein - 3/4/2005

Um. Good heavens.

Dad the Emeritus Historian of Graeco-Roman Egypt has, so far, managed to avoid Alexander, but it was great fun listening to him rant on after he suffered through Troy.

Richard Henry Morgan - 3/4/2005

I'm still trying to figure out why Herodotus is called the Father of History. Thucydides, maybe. Being given a Harry ain't such a great honor, I would think, when you consider all the dubious material in Herodotus' work.