"you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" -- bob dylan And, you don't have to be an historian to see the main problem with this series. It's mostly based on interpretation and not evidence. For instance, throughout they rely on pictures and portraits to tell the story. Each time they're taking the context and then interpreting what the picture means. It's just nonsense, even if it's correct, and it's not just the images but facts and context as well. Drawing conclusions without reviewing all the evidence first. I can't imagine going to a conference and somebody showed this series, and they wouldn't be laughed at. So, why isn't the media held to the same scholarly integrity? Is it because history has to be entertaining not accurate so it can be spoon fed to the masses? How many times have I heard pop culture celebrities complain about being plagued by misinformation and misinterpretation based on the same kind of non-fact based as in this so called historical documentary. Never seen anything like this in ken burn's documentaries because he has integrity and trust in the viewers.
I'm no expert on churchill. From all I can tell, it's the same biography I've read and seen before, without the juicy parts of churchill. I mean if everything was revealed, americans in particular would be surprised and a bit uncomfortable. I often wonder what sucess he would have today, if no one remembered what made him a celebrity. I don't want to discount his value to britain guiding the country thru the war and his speeches were tremendous but he wasn't a superhero and he didn't win the war entirely to himself and he didn't deserve the supersillious hollywood movie that came out recently that reflects the level of education in america. Take out the silly psychic interpretations of photos and portraits and I'd rate this a 6 for interesting but not enough to hold my attention for 5 hrs.
