More telly!

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

Coming up in the next few weeks on BBC2 here in sunny Britain, 'The Supersizers Eat...the French Revolution' (or 'Versailles', as some listing previews seem to have it), a one hour prog on the eating habits of the 1780's/90's, as far as I can gather...I'm guessing 'cake' (yeah, I know, it was either brioche or a pre-existing anecdote reapplied to da queen), oranges, and the dawn of canned food, but I may be totally wrong. And better - or possibly worse - well, at any rate, more pertinent to this site - 'Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution' http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/04_april/22/bbctwo_tz.shtml ...well, you go for years, decades, with nothing on the telly and suddenly - oh BBC, you are really spoiling us! Or not, as the case may be - 90 mins on Robespierre (neat!) only with Simon bastard bloody scrotum-faced Schama (nooooooo). God, I was gutted as I scrolled down the page. I know the BBC have him on a 3 million quid contract (our money!), but that's just cruel. Like putting celery in my food.
Be interesting to see how the prog plays out - the synopsis sounds like the usual fare - Schama doing his standard 'it was the proto-Holocaust' thing - but Zizek is this decade's student darling, and the British public quite like the idea of guillotining non-virtuous politicians at the moment! No date as yet, but it's the 220th anniversary (tenuous link beloved of schedulers) of that Bastille business, so I reckon it'll be on around then. I don't know how to put stuff on youtube, but if anyone else here in Britain can copy and post the broadcasts (because BBC online isn't available from overseas), that'd be fab!

Comments

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

Yes, I don't like Zizek's preface to the "Virtue and Terror' book: he doesn't seem to consider context, either. Still, I'm surprised (pleasantly surprised) they're going to do a 'debate' - usually, it's just a straight Burke/Carlyle 'revolution is bad and the leaders are mad' line (and having seen some recent French popular history magazines, they're no better: it's 'tyran' all the way there, too). I'd like to see a repeat of the debate Channel 4 did in 1989: it had Michael Foot (bookish former Labour Party leader) defending the Jacobins.

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

And as I type this - on BBC4: 'Simon Schama's John Donne'.

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

Actually, looking up some stuff on his book on 'Lost Causes', Zizek comes across well (suppose I should read more of him - I just have a knee-jerk hatred of cultural theorists, specially if they're fashionable, but it seems he's an anti-po-mo-cultural theorist, therefore one of the good guys)...he's a lot smarter than Schama, so I'm hoping he'll wipe the floor with him.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

I don't like cultural theorists either, so perhaps I'm biased, but I wasn't particularly impressed by that book. Admittedly, I only read sections of it in a bookstore a couple of times, but all the same... It has, as I recall, some of the same problems as his preface to Virtue and Terror.

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

I've just reread the intro to the 'Virtue and Terror' book..... Zizek quotes with apparent approval Foucault's infatuated witterings on the Iranian Revolution, and ends up by comparing Robespierre with the purity of drive of Muslim Fundamentalists - which is A) madness (and it's hard to think of anything more opposed in both ends and means to the values of the Enlightenment), and B)the BBC will LOVE as 'soooo controversial and relevant to, like, the issues of NOW. As Zizek also seems to think it's Fascist/Far Right when European countries like France do stuff like ban religion / headscarves in schools (rather than seeing it as Enlightenment values in action, allowing a child at least some hours in the day when it is not being indoctrinated into superstition or forced to conform to the dress codes of dark-age patriarchy!) I'm thinking this could be car crash TV. As the old line has it, with friends like that, who needs enemeies?

Ok, I may be misjudging him on the basis of a short and extraordinarily foggy essay, but if it's true that he hates post-modernists for their lack of beliefs/values, I found it difficult to discern any of Zizek's own.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

As the old line has it, with friends like that, who needs enemies?
That about sums up my whole objection to this "debate."

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

I can't say I agree; a debate implying that "both" "sides" of the argument are being covered when really only one side is representative (Schama being more or less representative of revisionists/reactionaries, Zizek not being at all representative of defenders of the Revolution in general or of Robespierre in particular) is rather worse than no debate at all. People who might well be sympathetic to a plausible historical interpretation of Robespierre will almost certainly be turned off by Zizek's representation (which is very similar to Schama's), even if it is a defense. After all, those who listen to Schama do not dislike the Revolution because he does not like it directly, but indirectly, through the skewed "fact" he presents that they believe to be the truth.

After all, if Robespierre is a fanatical mass-murderer (and all the rest), what does it matter if one side of the debate is defending him? Does it make people like fanatical mass-murderers more? For my part, if I believed Zizek's interpretation of Robespierre to be correct--which I most emphatically do not--I probably would not like him much more than Schama does. (Though I would probably still be less of a reactionary bastard.)

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

They really had to make a debate featuring two caricatured extremists, didn't they? Damn.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Naturally. >.>

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

Clash of egos - it's what viewers go for. Radio history progs are generally pretty good, quite nuanced: I've just listened to "In Our Time' on the trial of Charles 1 this morning, and they had three professors discussing it for 45 minutes and the end result covered most of the main points (and wound up with 'and paved the way for things like the French Revolution and the Nuremberg trials' - well, it's a rare thing here to hear Louis XVI's trial called a war crimes trial!). TV viewers are dumber, need stuff to be 'sexed up'with a 'celebrity academic' fight (though not many regard Schama as a serious 'academic'!).

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

There I have to disagree as well; I think the viewers are more intelligent than television producers give them credit for. I highly doubt they'd lose viewers by reducing their idiocy quotient. Of course, it's not as if it's an experiment they've ever tried...

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

I'm genuinely surprised they're having Zizek on BBC2: he's more a late night Channel 4 figure. Despite he presence of Schama and the very negative synopsis, the fact that they're doing an hour and a half (50 mins would be more usual for this type of prog) on a non-Briton who isn't Napoleon or something-in-WW2-that-can-involve-loving-shots-of-military-hardware makes me hope BBC2 is improving. There was a small item on Tom Paine on TV last week, and The Enlightenment does seem to be more prominent in political discourse at the mo, c/o Christopher Hitchens etc., so maybe history progs on subjects other than war might be in the offing. (I like 'The Supersizers go...', but it's not exactly history - more a dressing up show involving some old recipes, and the presenters have their poo tested at the end!)

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Forgive me if the present indications leave me less than optimistic. They may well start offering more programs in this vein, but from what we've seen so far I'm not inclined to view that as a good thing.