Hi All,
I'm glad this thread stirred up so much debate. So, I guess I should put in my two cents worth.
Personally, I enjoyed 'Band of Brothers'.
I acknowledge that some facts have been held up to scrutiny and other timelines have been condensed. It is in this area that history sometimes collides with entertainment and personally I think that 'Band of Brothers' struck a highly admirable compromise.
Listening to ABC Radio late one evening I listened to a tremendous debate about the growth of the history being written in a narrative form. Whilst held in disdain by purists, others have embraced the form.
Personally, I believe that if we can remain true to history and still represent history in a realistic, but entertaining, fashion then it should be done. If the history is not to solely be the reserve of dusty archival records, but a living,breathing form for the next generation to cherish and learn from, then we have to present it in a suitable manner.
Documentaries, movies such as 'Private Ryan' and mini-series such as 'Band of Brothers' spike the interest, as do historical narratives. I think it is these forms of history that are stirring up interest amongst the youth and growing crowds on ANZAC Day. From their ranks historians will grow and delve that much deeper. But for the masses to retain the history, 'Band of Brothers' and its ilk are doing in part what needs to be done.
My two cents worth and I can guarantee that I am frequently in the wrong.
Cheers,
Owen