Sunday, March 24, 2013

Let's go a-Viking...


If you haven't been watching "The Vikings" (produced through The History Channel), you should be.  It's fantastic.  The History Channel doesn't have the highest reputation among my fellow historians, in part because the channel has a strong tendency to sway to whichever breeze blows from its current ownership.  That's the explanation behind what are sometimes "interesting" trends in the channel's lineup—and why we sometimes refer to it as the "Hister" Channel, based on the recurring predominance of shows about Hitler.  An apparent fascination with aliens and Armageddon are also explained by this phenomenon.  But "The Vikings" is pretty solid, from what I've seen.
It's the first historical drama (ok, ancient historical drama) whose writers seem convinced that you can tell an intriguing story and still include a bunch of interesting and informative historical information.  It isn't perfect, but considering that its current competition is probably Spartacus: War of the Damned (whose writers specifically said that they weren't going to let the history "hold them back") we can forgive "The Vikings" for instances where the interpretation is relatively free. 
The portrayal of religion—pagan as well as medieval Christian—is really neat.  As is the inclusion of interesting material about sexuality, technology, and social and political hierarchy.  History really is better than fiction.  To my eye at least, "The Vikings" is far more watchable, full of color and depth and "foreignness" that makes it far more effective than the Spartacus series.  The people at Starz took a lot of time and effort (and money) to portray the story of Spartacus and the Third Servile War (73-71 BCE) in a way that is largely style, rather than substance—if the writers hadn't decided that the history would have hampered them, they could have used what little solid evidence we do possess to construct a truly great story.  There's a lot of meat on the bones of the tale of Spartacus, and the writers missed most of it and presented us with scraps and gristle instead.  The History Channel's Viking series, after only a few episodes, seems to me to be a truly fantastic piece of historical fiction...you can learn a lot of interesting things and still be entertained. 
As of now I believe there will only be nine episodes of "The Vikings," which is a tragedy considering that Spartacus got 3+ entire seasons to not actually get around to telling much about the story of Spartacus.  They could have easily done much more than they did, especially once you remember that we live in the great Renaissance of epic movie-making...with the massive improvements in technology studios are more or less free to paint whatever canvas they want, on whatever scale.  The Viking show should be the recipient of three seasons of tale-telling, rather than the historical mutilation that is Starz' Spartacus series.
I don't think I'm alone in this, for a variety of reasons.  I'm a historian, so of course I'm interested in things including more history...but I think that lots and lots of people, and not just academics, are interested and entertained by more historical accuracy.  I suggest this based partly on conversations I had with customers when I worked as a barista, during the first part of my grad school career.  If you work or have worked as a barista, you know that you end up talking to a lot of random people that you'd otherwise never encounter.  And one of the things that I found over and over was that people in their later twenties and thirties routinely said that they had grown to like history.  It was common that I'd talk to somebody who had once hated history (thanks to our miserable public school curriculum in the US, especially after the debacle that is No Child Left Behind) who later grew to like it a lot.  I think there's a large audience of people who want more rather than less substance.  And so we should all watch "The Vikings" and tell our friends about it...I already have...since that's the only way we can influence studios to pay more than lip service to the historical foundation of past events they want to dramatize.

No comments:

Post a Comment