Thank you, Nathen for a detailed and interesting background to the making of documentaries. It seems to me that the production teams have more of an agenda than the historians presenting the documentary. It must be stressful and very difficult to remain calm when constantly having to reset during a longer piece, especially if someone walks onto the shot. I would have hoped members of the public would be better controlled by security barriers and personnel. At the end of the day, your safety is more important than the crowd wanting attention. It's interesting reading about the process and the pressures to do or say something you may not want to. In one documentary on Netflix the talking heads were giving commentary and context which often didn't match the drama being recreated. The plus side I guess, you get to film inside some beautiful locations you may not normally have time to visit or the opportunity to see when you are there alone.
A very interesting and comprehensive overview of the recording process though you did not mention the technique whereby actors in costume sometimes appear as the historical figures discussed. For me , this can be a bugbear when I get annoyed that the actors do not, in my opinion , resemble the historical persons and also errors in the historical costume ! Again , many thanks for a very informative post. I love documentaries on a wide range of historical subjects , and they have been great way to extend my knowledge eg a few years ago I watched a brilliant series of programmes telling the narrative of the American Civil war .
Do watch "Leonardo", by the same team as "The Civil War".
And I too am annoyed by actors who look nothing like the originals! Don't give me a skinny-faced Nero or a ramrod straight Richard III! Get the costumes in the correct century!
(Though I must admit I still love "I, Claudius", sparse sets and all.)
Thank you, Nathen, really interesting explanation of the process. I love a history doco, even when I disagree with the conclusions the producers come to. Watching a documentary can lead people to read more about a subject, hopefully books by the historians interviewed. The viewer learns something and the historian sells a few more books than they otherwise would. I agree that there’s no point getting worked up about anything anyone says on TV.
A very interesting article, Nathen. I think everyone who spouted hate online following the recent ‘Princes in the Tower’ documentary should read this, as it is very eye-opening and sheds some much needed light on the process of documentary making. It might make them realise that their hate was totally misplaced, and that there is no place for it within the subject of history.
I have purchased books from many historians I've seen on TV, so now I'll be on the lookout for yours. Huzzah, Substack algorithm.
I was in one doc but only as an indoors talking head, so no walking or public interference. A friend also was in it, but had less screen time, which caused a bit of a cool period. I think that was because, as the sound man told me, "you give great soundbite!"
Have you seen the lovely 4-hour Leonardo doc that aired in the US last month? I learned so much, and the photography is astonishing. My brother the retired art professor has watched it 3 times; since it's on discs, there's Christmas sorted!
(and of course the pretenders were -- being locked up in a drafty medieval castle is bad for children's health, even without murder.)
Really useful description of the process. It explains all of the reasons I usually don't bother to watch them - there's no point in getting worked up about them, and as you say, it normally isn't the fault of the interviewed expert. I'm intrigued by the idea of the historian as a brand. I'd never thought of it like that, and I don't know that any of the eminent historians who taught me as an undergraduate did either! How the world has changed.
I'm not even sure most would agree or even see it as that way, but in the world of social media, it undoubtedly seems as such to me for public-facing historians. The concept is to get work out there, whether TV, podcasting, reels etc. With the financial squeeze on academia, this will probably only increase.
I absolutely love this article. The topic of the historian as a brand is one that I’ve been giving a lot of thought to lately. Do you think that the increased social media presence of historians has made some historians more entrenched in their opinions and perhaps less open to new interpretations of historical evidence? As a historian makes a brand of their position on certain historical topics, I think that it can make it difficult for them to admit that they’ve changed their perspective. This is completely understandable, given the vitriol they are likely to be subjected to on social media. As an avid consumer of historical content, I’ve found that I really have to take this into account as I come to my own conclusions. While social media has given me much greater access to historians (which I absolutely love), it also requires me to analyze the intent of their content in a way that I didn’t have to a decade ago. There’s so much more to it than just sharing information and increasing book sales, and navigating that nuance as a historical consumer can be difficult.
Thanks for such a fascinating article; it’s very thought provoking. The history nerd in me really, really wants to watch the 6 hours of footage that was filmed that didn’t make it into the documentary. Keep up the great work.
Thank you, Nathen for a detailed and interesting background to the making of documentaries. It seems to me that the production teams have more of an agenda than the historians presenting the documentary. It must be stressful and very difficult to remain calm when constantly having to reset during a longer piece, especially if someone walks onto the shot. I would have hoped members of the public would be better controlled by security barriers and personnel. At the end of the day, your safety is more important than the crowd wanting attention. It's interesting reading about the process and the pressures to do or say something you may not want to. In one documentary on Netflix the talking heads were giving commentary and context which often didn't match the drama being recreated. The plus side I guess, you get to film inside some beautiful locations you may not normally have time to visit or the opportunity to see when you are there alone.
A very interesting and comprehensive overview of the recording process though you did not mention the technique whereby actors in costume sometimes appear as the historical figures discussed. For me , this can be a bugbear when I get annoyed that the actors do not, in my opinion , resemble the historical persons and also errors in the historical costume ! Again , many thanks for a very informative post. I love documentaries on a wide range of historical subjects , and they have been great way to extend my knowledge eg a few years ago I watched a brilliant series of programmes telling the narrative of the American Civil war .
Do watch "Leonardo", by the same team as "The Civil War".
And I too am annoyed by actors who look nothing like the originals! Don't give me a skinny-faced Nero or a ramrod straight Richard III! Get the costumes in the correct century!
(Though I must admit I still love "I, Claudius", sparse sets and all.)
Thank you, Nathen, really interesting explanation of the process. I love a history doco, even when I disagree with the conclusions the producers come to. Watching a documentary can lead people to read more about a subject, hopefully books by the historians interviewed. The viewer learns something and the historian sells a few more books than they otherwise would. I agree that there’s no point getting worked up about anything anyone says on TV.
A very interesting article, Nathen. I think everyone who spouted hate online following the recent ‘Princes in the Tower’ documentary should read this, as it is very eye-opening and sheds some much needed light on the process of documentary making. It might make them realise that their hate was totally misplaced, and that there is no place for it within the subject of history.
Thanks for this Nathen. I don't have anywhere near as much experience on this side of things as you do - but what I have matches yours pretty closely.
I have purchased books from many historians I've seen on TV, so now I'll be on the lookout for yours. Huzzah, Substack algorithm.
I was in one doc but only as an indoors talking head, so no walking or public interference. A friend also was in it, but had less screen time, which caused a bit of a cool period. I think that was because, as the sound man told me, "you give great soundbite!"
Have you seen the lovely 4-hour Leonardo doc that aired in the US last month? I learned so much, and the photography is astonishing. My brother the retired art professor has watched it 3 times; since it's on discs, there's Christmas sorted!
(and of course the pretenders were -- being locked up in a drafty medieval castle is bad for children's health, even without murder.)
This was so detailed and interesting! Thanks Nathen!
Really useful description of the process. It explains all of the reasons I usually don't bother to watch them - there's no point in getting worked up about them, and as you say, it normally isn't the fault of the interviewed expert. I'm intrigued by the idea of the historian as a brand. I'd never thought of it like that, and I don't know that any of the eminent historians who taught me as an undergraduate did either! How the world has changed.
I'm not even sure most would agree or even see it as that way, but in the world of social media, it undoubtedly seems as such to me for public-facing historians. The concept is to get work out there, whether TV, podcasting, reels etc. With the financial squeeze on academia, this will probably only increase.
I absolutely love this article. The topic of the historian as a brand is one that I’ve been giving a lot of thought to lately. Do you think that the increased social media presence of historians has made some historians more entrenched in their opinions and perhaps less open to new interpretations of historical evidence? As a historian makes a brand of their position on certain historical topics, I think that it can make it difficult for them to admit that they’ve changed their perspective. This is completely understandable, given the vitriol they are likely to be subjected to on social media. As an avid consumer of historical content, I’ve found that I really have to take this into account as I come to my own conclusions. While social media has given me much greater access to historians (which I absolutely love), it also requires me to analyze the intent of their content in a way that I didn’t have to a decade ago. There’s so much more to it than just sharing information and increasing book sales, and navigating that nuance as a historical consumer can be difficult.
Thanks for such a fascinating article; it’s very thought provoking. The history nerd in me really, really wants to watch the 6 hours of footage that was filmed that didn’t make it into the documentary. Keep up the great work.