Heroes of History |
“So many history programmes aimed at children are dull and patronising. Not this one, though. They may be pretty, but presenters Fran and Ania are certainly no airheads, and deliver interesting historical facts with an impressive lightness of touch. To be entertaining and informative is quite a tricky balance to achieve – but this pacey show does manage it.” Daily Mail
|
| “Good children’s television which both entertains and informs.”
The Observer
|
| “A nicely-judged mix of entertainment and education.” Sunday Times
|
| "Heroes of History (Five, Sunday). Let's see how they do the more
educational stuff for children these days. Lesson one then is Henry VIII.
Ah, I see: a couple of very attractive young Oxbridge-type ladies dress
up in Tudor gear and go back to the olden days. They ponce about at the
Tower of London and Hampton Court. They dance and ride and play kitchen
staff - plucking pheasants and gutting rabbits. And weirdly it all seems
to work. Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived. See?
I don't think I'll ever forget it." - The Guardian (also at
|
Bonfire night poses a problem for TV companies in how to approach a well-worn topic that comes round every year in a refreshing way. Channel Five high-lights this difficulty with Heroes of History: Guy Fawkes, an uninspir-ing tribute to Guy Fawkes that sadly fails to go off with the bang we might have expected from fireworks night.The premise of two teenage girls wandering around historic London sites and learning about Guy Fawkes would not have been such a bad idea, were it not for the sheer irritability of the two young presenters. Their narration is punctuated with contrived screaming and melodramatic emotion that detracts from the story they’re trying to relate. While their colloquial speech may be an attempt to appeal to younger viewers, it simply seems to degenerate into unintelligible sentences not even salvaged by further shrieking. The programme descends into sheer farce when they try to convince the ridiculous, floppy haired “Ben the Bookreader” that Fawkes was set up. While their claims of Fawkes’ innocence are by no means implausible, their impetuous, foot-stamping method of arguing fails to inspire any conviction.The programme then shifts its focus to modern-day celebrations. This unfortunately cues five minutes of the two presenters professing their excitement for fireworks, culminating in a bizarre anxiety about pressing the button to set off a pyrotechnic display. The viewers are finally granted a respite from their incessant squealing, that would better suit an overexcited preteen audience at a Westlife concert, as the camera flicks skywards and all you can hear are the explosions of the fireworks.Perhaps it is a reflection of my distorted cultural taste that I preferred Britain’s Worst...Chef. I would like to think, however, that it is more to do with the fact that Channel Five is better at producing reality TV than they are historical documentaries.This episode follows in a long line of the country’s worst husbands, hair-dressers, teenagers and bosses, and sticks rigidly to the successful formu-la. Four hopeless cooks are brought together and set a series of tasks that will determine which of them gains the dubious mantle of being crowned the worst chef in the country. among the nominees is Grismby café-worker Bev who has an “egg phobia” and is bemused when she discovers ome-lettes need to be turned over to be cooked properly. Then there is the creatively minded Keith, who counts blue mashed potato and peppers stuffed with beans and peanut butter among his better concoctions.When the four chefs are asked to cook a three course meal for celebrity chef ed Baines and five friends, disas-ter is foretold when Keith thinks that vegetarians can eat white meat. and then Stefan, head chef at a London Mexican restaurant, decides to cook the vegetables in meat juice, result-ing in a hasty last minute alteration that leaves the poor vegetarian with a mountain of cous-cous decorated with avocado and grapes. Things go from bad to worse when they realise that the lady who is wheat intolerant can’t eat cous-cous.Inevitably these types of reality programmes appeal to the baser side of viewers; the side that encourages us to snigger smugly and snort with derision at the incompetence of the chefs. But they also serve as a good hour of mind-numbing entertain-ment which leaves even the most use-less student cooks feeling somewhat better about themselves. Oxford students' mag. |
| The Pineapple. King of fruits. |
It is surprising how few books there are on the history of fruits. Few topics can be more satisfyingly whole or surprisingly rich - more fruitful, in short. The pineapple's 500-year recorded history leads first-time author Fran Beauman to explore linguistics, social and economic history, colonialism, the industrial revolution, stone masonry, gardening technology and much more...Beauman jauntily rides the pineapple on through history. Beauman's lively book is jam-packed with details..As Beauman concludes, the pineapple's tantalising exoticism its unique shape, heady perfume, lip-stinging juices and cultural resonance ensures it remains emphatically the king of fruits Beauman's enthusiasm for her subject gives the book an admirable dynamism |