From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Covington Cross--A Review
Followup-To: rec.arts.tv
Summary: historical accuracy
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:03:23 GMT

In article <bh.920826115137@lab12.eng.auburn.edu>, bh@eng.auburn.edu (Brian Hartsfield) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.125116.17902@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> eah4@po.CWRU.Edu (Elizabeth A. Hlabse) writes:
> >
> >In a previous article, sallylb@netcom.com (Sally Smith) says:
> >
> >>In article <lis.714798232@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> lis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Elisabeth Riba) writes:
> >>>Spoilers Ho!
> >>
> >> (trashing of show removed)
> >>
> >>Historical accuracy -- well, I didn't see any either, I kept making
> >>comments to that effect the whole time. But I didn't go in expecting
> >>any. I don't expect historical accuracy from TV in *any* period --
> >>ancient, medieval, Renaissance, Wild West.
> >
> >A friend and I watched it together and did the same thing.  A lot
> >of historical inaccuracies, but I was watching it to have fun,
> >not to see an historical documentary.
> >
> 
> I agree, I didn't watch it to see something completely historically acurate.
> If, for exampe, they had made Elenor abide by every wish of her father even
> though ti is accurate, a 90's audience would have a hard time accepting that
> (as a general rule. People that are familiar with the middle ages wouldn't
> of course) and the show would probably get labeled by those women's groups as
> being sexist and a label of sexist is a lot worse the historially inaccurate.
> The middle ages were not politcaly correct, but the 90s are and shows still 
> have to be tailored for a 90s audience.
> >>
> >>But on the fun level, it *was* fun. I laughed, I enjoyed the swashing
> >>and buckling, I thought Nigel Terry has aged marvelously... ;-)
> >
> >Yes, he has.  I think this is going to be an hour where
> >I just sit back and enjoy myself and have a few good laughs.
> >Of course, you realize that this series will probably not last.
> >That's what usually happens when there is something I enjoy on.
> >
> >
> Exactly.  It may not have been historially accurate, but I wasn't exspecting

I don't mind that shows don't have historical accuracy.  Oddly enough,
if they did - no one would believe them, since we are so trained by
stereotypes.  STill this one was pretty bad.  His 90's kind
of daughter and all.  If he set up a marriage contract and
she refused, the only logical answer from him would be "How does
Sister Eleanor of the Convent of Eternal Chastity sound to you?"

The real question is, what kind of show is this supposed to be?  
The middle ages were a very serious time.  If this is supposed
to be "drama", then you've got to have a certain amount of reality.
To me Drama = reality (even if it is an unreal reality, such as space
or made up history).  In Comedy, you can break down the 4th wall
and talk to the audience.  Very tough in drama.  It's been done
like in Equus, but more often there is a trumped up reason for
the narrative (in 40's movies they were talking to cops or recording
confessions or something).  In comedy you can have guys licking their
hands and using them as suction cups to cross walls, you can't suddenly
do that in drama.  So what is this show - drama, comedy, spoof,
parody?

About the middle ages being "Non Politically Correct" - I would
think so.  This show could be White Supremecists favorite - no
Blacks, no Jews, no minorities, just alot of White Christians
swearing on their swords.

marc colten