A great man who its not hard to look up to, be it his participation in fighting against Fascism or his opposition to the Stalinist USSR and totalitarianism in general. Even if you disagree with Orwell's politics you have to admire his honest attempts to make our world a better place and that he really tried to change our world for the positive. To me he was a great, great writer and an even better human being.
I'm not so sure that he was a great human being. He wasn't horrible by any means but nothing he ever did stuck out to me as being necessary to be lauded. He was a great writer and from the documentary you get the idea that he was always a writer even before he wrote. I think it's better to just judge him on his accomplishments and not to worry so much about the quality of his character. It was mixed as it is with most of us.
That beginning music transports me back to a time when my body was not alive, and yet in which I have forever resided. Many thanks to those who preserve such shows.
I read WP a number of years ago and it still haunts me to this day. Those were some tough, tough times. Yes, many of us are very lucky today. Happy reading of this great author!
This series of documentaries is lovely - marvellous! I hadn't known about them before, either. I don't know what on earth I was doing in 1983 to have missed them. Thank you very much for putting them out here.
Alex Colucci man it's amazing what you can tell about one's distant past from a recent mug shot.....only the new romantic bit is not correct.....never understood that bunch. but the invading back doors bit is quite right. also dropping in through ceilings, occasionally.
Well said, Especially,,,i dont know,,,what I was doing in 1983 to have missed them, Isnt that the universal human predicament ? What were ANY of us doing in year X to have missed Y, Were we not born till after then?
This is quality,,each one of the 5 films in this series a gem, Far better than callow stuff done recently which are about the presenter not Orwell, Yentob/Williams were a good team,,,Arena was a good series and the BBC made its own documentaries, All changed,,,changed utterly A miasma of vacuity pollutes the wells & poisons the air we breathe, I do find though that even a little bit of Muggeridge is too much
Brought here by a passing mention in the BBC's The Road to Nineteen Eighty-four, currently the only episode of The Real George Orwell available on BBC Radio. It was first released in 2013. Well worth a listen.
BBC are you watching? Please make this quality of documentary again. We don’t need special affects, re-enactments or dramatic music. The content and the story should suffice.
Been trying to see again this for over 20 years! Can't understand why the BBC have never showed it again (well, not to my knowledge anyway). Thanks for uploading it, be fantastic if you have the other 4 parts.
It seems to be one of the things I've always believed - that 1984 and Animal Farm are essential reading, and should be read in one's late teens and again in one's twenties. I read them in 2 days when I was 17. This quiet, unassuming, but very honest chap has become one of the most important writers in English culture & history. This will sound very trite, but the message of 1984 grows more urgent with every passing year - as ignorant politicians, determined to forget the lessons of the past, try to take away our freedom of speech. And I often go back to his essay writing - particularly "Politics and the English Language" which is about how vague, dishonest language is used to hoodwink people. Again, this never got any less relevant. Lately I've found a marvelous audiobook version of Down and Out in Paris and London on YT (there are 2, one vastly superior to the other) - and I've listened to it so much I can virtually recite passages off by heart. Amazing how a book on this subject could be such a good read/listen (!)
Difficult to grasp now just how casually brutal the everyday world that Orwell grew up in was. Violence and death were expected. People were emotionally cauterised.
This is cobbled together from a 1965 BBC series of interviews with Malcolm Muggeridge, Cyril Connolly and others; as well as new 1983 material with Orwell's biographer Bernard Crick as interviewer and presenter (Muggeridge appears again). Crick tended to be talky and overbearing, so his screen time was pared down. A new (2018) book by David Ryan, GEORGE ORWELL ON SCREEN, describes the background and cast of characters.
The British Empire attempted to drag primitive countries into the modern age in a more gentle manner than what was accomplished in Russia and China. Its still not clear who succeeded best. Meanwhile at home, all the glory and the wealth of the empire remained invisible to far too many lost souls. Lost souls that Orwell sought to find companionship amongst.
Five minutes in. Mr Blair states in his will that no biography shall be written about him. Then they introduce a man writing his biography. The Hanging comes to mind. Or Bookshop Memories 😂😂
Who he? What’s the problem? Runciman was a brilliant and respected (and humorous) historian focusing on The Crusades. (The ones in the Middle Ages) He blew the lid off traditional treatment of the subject when he proposed that these events should also be viewed sympathetically from the Muslim perspective. And he backed up his opinion with research. In books. And scrolls. In things called libraries. That you had to physically go to. You have the internet at your fingertips.You only have to tap your screen or your mouse to find out who he. And yes. For what it’s worth, I think he’d have been a great father.
I've read most of your comments here (silly me). Again and again they strike me as strident, self-righteous and simply wrong on many points. And here you display your ignorance - Steven Runciman was an extremely intelligent, hardworking and accomplished man (fluent in Latin and Ancient Greek and half a dozen other languages) who hugely increased our knowledge and understanding of the Byzantine Empire and the Crusades. Runciman was by all accounts a very decent, broadminded man, and by the way a good friend of Eric Blair when they were at Eton together.
"What opinions the masses hold, or do not hold, is a matter of indifference. They can be granted intellectual liberty because they have no intellect." -George Orwell, 1984 ·····················What do suppose Orwell meant by that? Here's a piece of that terrible secret. ···················· "To know what you know, and to know what you do not know. That is true knowledge." -Confucius ······························· "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." -George Orwell, 1984 ···································Formal/classical logic was invented in ancient Greece (circa 300 B.C.) as a systematic method by which free Greeks could identify deliberate deception and/or errors in reasoning. Neither the Greeks nor, later, the Romans considered it wise to teach logic to common slaves, for obvious reasons. The teaching of classical logic was removed from the US public school system over 150 years ago, and has been systematically suppressed by our media, for exactly the same reasons. (Check out John Gatto's book "Dumbing Us Down", his "Ultimate History Lesson" on youtube, and "The Lost Tools of Learning" by Dorothy Sayers, google). The following is a concise and effective method of using formal logic and is the essence of that ancient system of reasoning (adapted from a definition given in an early edition of Howard Kahane' s book "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric"). ··································· "All instruction given or received by way of argument proceeds from pre-existent knowledge." -Aristotle, Posterior Analytics ·································· "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, Rhetoric ··································Cogent (logical) reasoning, reasoning designed to strongly appeal to the intellect rather than the emotions, should meet 3 conditions: ·································· 1. It should begin with justified premises (true propositions well supported by solid verifiable evidence). ····································2. It should contain all of the known relevant evidence. (The suppression, or improbable absence, of relevant evidence is a good indication of deception. Relevant evidence is any evidence that would tend to make an argument more likely or less likely to be true.) ······································ 3. It should be properly structured, so that it comes to a conclusion which logically follows from the premises. (In the case of valid deductive arguments this conclusion would "necessarily" follows from the premises. In the case of very strong inductive arguments it would follow "beyond a reasonable doubt". In both cases it would be free of contradiction and consistent with the facts.) ·····································When an argument meets these conditions (ie. verifiably true premises, all relevant evidence, and properly structured) it is said to be sound or cogent, and very likely to be true. When an argument does not meet these conditions it is said to be fallacious (faulty/deceptive reasoning). ···································"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance." -George Bernard Shaw ··································· Now, on to a bit of rhetoric with the informal logical fallacy: ····························· Professor Madsen Pirie most aptly defines a logical fallacy as anything one can say or do that breaks down or subverts reason. The ancient Greeks discovered over 200 different logical fallacies. Here are some commonly used "informal" logical fallacies taken from the book "The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric" by Sister Miriam Joseph Ph.D..(In his book "Logic For Lawyers" Ruggero Aldisert defines the formal logical fallacy as an "error in the logical form of an argument" and informal logical fallacies as those that "deal with the content and context of premises." When an argument meets the three conditions of cogent reasoning it does not contain any formal logical fallacies.) ································· "ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM Argumentum ad hominem ( literally, an "argument to the man") fallacy confuses the point at issue with the people concerned. Attacks on the character and conduct of people and personal abuse or praise are substituted for reasoning on the point at issue. Argumentum ad hominem seeks to persuade by unsound ethos. In rhetoric ethos means establishing the speaker or writer as one worthy of making an argument." ······································ "ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM The argumentum ad populum fallacy arises from substituting an appeal to the passions and prejudices of the people for logical reasoning on the point at issue..." ··································· "ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM The argumentum ad misericordiam (literally, an "argument to pity") fallacy replaces reason with a plea for sympathy." ····························· "ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM Argumentum ad baculum is the appeal to the "big stick." The issue is ignored in an attempt to inspire fear of the consequences of adopting a proposed opinion or program, or of allowing a movement branded as dangerous to gain strength. The threat of social ostracism or loss of position might be used to deter a person from exposing fraud..." ······································"ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM Argumentum ad ignorantiam is the use of an argument that sounds convincing to others because they are ignorant of the weaknesses of the argument and of the facts that stand against it." ······································ "Argumentum ad populum, ad misericordiam, ad baculum, and ad ignorantiam also demonstrates an unsound use of pathos. Pathos is a term used in rhetoric to mean that a speaker or writer tries to establish empathy with the audience." ··································· ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM Argumentum ad verecundiam is an appeal to the prestige or respect in which a proponent of an argument is held as a guarantee of the truth of the argument. This is unwarranted when reasoning about an issue is required and only the authority of its upholders or opponents is given consideration. It is perfectly legitimate to supplement reasoning with authority (Argumentum ad auctoritatem ), but it is fallacious to substitute authority for reasoning in matters capable of being understood by reason." ········································ There are many other such logical fallacies that are quite persuasive and often very subtle. It is well worth your time to learn as much about them as you can. ································ CONCLUSION Therefore, when testing "any" argument one should ask if the three conditions of cogent reasoning have been met and if logical fallacies have been used. ··································· "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." -Rene Descartes ····································· "We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." -Plato ······································· 9/11: ·············· Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ··············· 9-11 Missing Links ··············· Dr Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College ·············· The Holocaust: ··············· Bishop Richard Williamson ·············· David McCalden ·············· David Cole ··············Mark Weber ··············· Germar Rudolf ·············· Ernst Zundel ·············· Sylvia Stolz ················· Cancer: ·············· Linus Pauling ··············· G. Edward Griffin ··············· Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez ················ AIDS and HIV: ················ Dr. Kary Mullis, Winner of the Nobel Prize ················ Dr. Peter Duesberg, author of the book 'Inventing the AIDS Virus' ················ Dr Robert Willner, author of the book 'Deadly Deception the Proof That Sex And HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS' ··············· JFK assassination: ·············· Jim Garrison ··············· Michael Collins Piper ·············· Dr Kevin Barrett ··············· Benjamin Freedman ··············· Sandy Hook shootings: ··············· Sofia Smallstorm ··············· Wolfgang Halbig ··············· The Moon Landing: ············· Bill Kaysing ·············· "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" by Bart Sibrel ············· All can be found on youtube.
Well, let's just think about this for a moment, shall we (?) Orwell solemnly requests that no biography be written about him. So the producers of this BBC series begin by interviewing . . . a biographer of Orwell (?) I feel obliged NOT to watch that . . . and so I'm stopping now. You can decide what YOU'LL do . . .
wow. such virtue. if it weren’t for this documentary, you might have made the awful mistake of seeing another biography of eric blair, since you wouldn’t have known he didn’t want a biography. you really dodged a bullet thanks to this. pity you’ll never know what was revealed at the end of the program.
The problem with these BBC documentaries about writers is that they all contain upper-class twonks talking snobbish crap. That's English society for you, even now in 2020.
You do realize that these were people who actually knew him, don’t you? Eric Blair was himself a member of the upper classes (British Middle class). It’s one reason his life was all the more extraordinary. He didn’t only experience the company of his own kind. He quite literally put himself into the shoes of others. (Yes, they could have tracked down a vagrant he knew from the doss houses, but they may not have been so easy to find at that point.) Documentaries should document. Not only to supply one-sided opinions. And when it comes to snobbery, it’s not just English society. It’s every society. Always has been. If you think England is so awful, then travel widely and see other societies. Not just as a tourist, but really live in them fora few years. Some may be better but many are much less fair in terms of class division. .
Down and out in London and Paris my ass! Orwell is acting poor he is being the epitome of a poser. I have been down and out but neither in London or Paris. One does not need to buy older clothes and trade in your new clothes. Poverty will take care of that. Your clothes will become worn and torn and you'll do the best of it and maybe gather other clothes from thrift stores or charity shops. I understand that he's young here and thinks of these clothes as a uniform of the poor. They are not a uniform they are an emblem of poverty. Poverty is not something you need to find, it will find you. The truly poor did not have a beachside abode to get three meals a day from their mom while their father pays the rent. Maturity I suspect would have made him a little bit embarrassed by his first sojourn among the poor. It would have embarrassed me.
In these documentaries we always have to listen to English reactionaries talking nonsense. "No-one can deny British administration was first-class." (27:45) They never seem to find working-class people, or local people, who were there to talk to. Even Orwell, in Burma until he learnt better, couldn't understand why these jonny foreigners didn't like being occupied and told what to do by the English.
Speaking as an Englishman myself, it's appalling to me. It's an insight into a brutal, arrogant world. Violence and death seemed to be almost expected in aspects of everyday life. The people were emotionally cauterised. Thank god things have progressed, although we can see the last vestiges of some of these attitudes in the baby boomers.
@@DuskAndHerEmbrace13 confirming what? That British administration was first class? You make it sound as if these countries were desperate *not* to be independent when it was offered to them. Britain, like other imperial powers, has a history which is often deeply unpleasant and drenched in blood.
These documentaries are awful. They only have reactionary voices, they only pick out the quotes from Orwell that contradict his reputation, there are no literary critics, Orwell experts...it's like an upper-class hatchet job. Alan Yentob and Nigel Williams - shocking.
Please understand that a person can learn as much from a contrary opinion as from a supporting opinion. Not everyone is going to have the same view of a particular person. That’s reality, and it doesn’t them wrong or make Orwell less than who he was. It’s context. These people actually knew him. Knew the times. Their views are valid whether or not they are the same as yours. If you admire Orwell, do yourself a favor and open your mind. He certainly did.
"He was anti-imperialist but he also appreciated imperialism." He completely misinterprets 'Burmese Days' (30:00) . And that guy who believes in 'white man's burden' (30:50) and all these countries have deteriorated since the British left... it's disgusting. Why is such upper-class idiocy always given voice on the BBC, voices who may have mixed with him but never literary or historical critics who might give a different side?
