BBC TV "WDYTYA?" Series 5 Episode #4: Esther Rantzen

[Necromancer]

I am such a sad person that I looked up the Barney Barnarto person - quite a bit about him including an interesting article by Scilla Rantzen (sister) where the relationship between Barnarto and her grandmother Sarah Isaac is established.
She does however support the lack of knowledge of any inheritance from him and obviously the programme explored the connection much more because of the vast sums of money acquired by this chap.
It has tainted the programme slightly for me because I think there was prior knowledge.

I was involved a little helping with some research for this programme.  It was made last summer (2007) and nothing was easily available then connecting the Rantzens to the Barnatos. Scilla must have used the information her sister found out when making the programme to write her article, it certainly wasn't the other way around.

This and other posts show it wasnt contrived...... reading some of the opinions onm here makes me wonder if I watched a different programme 


Dross ?  Wrong signals ?  For goodness sake see it in the spirit its made and offered.

[LizzieW]

It was fairly interesting, but not engrossing.  I, too, thought the Warsaw bit was unnecessary.  As I said to my OH, if her ancestors hadn't moved out, even if they'd survived whatever was going on at the time or later, she wouldn't have been born, because her other ancestors were already in London!

I mentioned under the J.Springer thread, that I thought the BBC seemed to be choosing celebrities who had a Jewish connection, because there would be some kind of history to weave into the programme.

I'd like more people like Barbara Windsor or Jeremy Paxman, showing the social history of what would have been the norm for ancestors of most of us.

Lizzie

[JenB]

Am I the only one on RC who thinks these programmes are absolute dross?

I woudn't go as far as to say that they are dross. I find them all fairly interesting but I do think they send out rather the wrong signals as far as family history is concerned.

I also find them increasingly formulaic.

We have the usual fit of weeping (although given the extremely harrowing context I exclude Gerry Springer from this criticism) and in nearly every episode now we seem to have a dramatic telephone call, informing the subject of a sudden and important 'discovery'.

Jennifer

[toni*]

I will still look out for the repeat, but at least I know I didnt miss a classic.

isn't it on bbc 2 now (6pm?)

i thought Esther was rather aloof
she didnt come across as she really wanted to know about anything she didnt take the time to actually look at the certificates or she would have known who Sarah Isaacs was when they sad about Barnett being her brother.
what is a shame is that all the address' relevant to her past have been destroyed one way or another
 

[meles]

... and in nearly every episode now we seem to have a dramatic telephone call, informing the subject of a sudden and important 'discovery'.

... with the cameraman conveniently being there at the time!  

I'd agree with those that thought that the Ghetto uprising was unnecessary. It's bit like adding a secton on the Blitz for someone who left London in the 1900's. The Ranzens fled the Imperial Russians, not the Nazis.

Let's hope the series will concentrate on new areas of social history now. It would be nice to have a bit more on the "how to", but I guess that's too much to expect!  

meles

[chris_49]

Like all TV companies the BBC is chasing ratings. If they were making the sort of programme we'd like to see, they'd feature non-celebrities, show the research properly with no histrionics, and tuck it away on BBC2 or even BBC4 late at night. So for BBC1 prime time they use celebs, to bring in an audience that might be more interested in the celeb than the genealogy, and they get the ratings.

Some of the celebs act in a refreshingly normal way, others act the part with the over-dramatisation - it's almost as if they think we expect it of them. I agree about the sudden revelation tactic, this seems to be fairly new. Perhaps orders from above. I for one enjoyed the Robert Lindsay episode, for example, but I can see that it might not have been interesting enough for some.

I wonder if they've investigated some celeb or other whose background has been considered too boring to be worthy of an episode? Would we find out about it if they did that?

Chris

[meles]

The one with Kevin Whately has been filmed but not broadcast (well, yet). He says "They stood me on the end of North Shields Fish Quay trying to make me cry, but I wouldn't".

meles

[Tuscany]

I found Esther Rantzens whole attitude very strange particularly after Jerry Springer last week, when he was reliving the terrible fate of his grandmothers, and genuinely grieving for them.  
I feel she was frivolous and insincere and I hope the rest of the series concentrates on people with a genuine interest in their forebears and not the paypacket at the end.  At least with Ainsley we can be sure of an honest programme.

[imstillstanding]

Having read all these comments I am now not SO disappointed that the "box" failed to record it for me last night. Was a bit mad at the time!
I will still look out for the repeat, but at least I know I didnt miss a classic.

You can also watch it on your pc via BBC i player within the next seven days
Julie x