Who Do You Think You Are?
- Serie TV
- 2004–
- 1h
VALUTAZIONE IMDb
8,0/10
1332
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Volti ben noti all'interno dei media britannici intraprendono ciascuno viaggi individuali per rispondere ad alcune domande sulla propria storia familiare.Volti ben noti all'interno dei media britannici intraprendono ciascuno viaggi individuali per rispondere ad alcune domande sulla propria storia familiare.Volti ben noti all'interno dei media britannici intraprendono ciascuno viaggi individuali per rispondere ad alcune domande sulla propria storia familiare.
- Ha vinto 2 BAFTA Award
- 2 vittorie e 6 candidature totali
Sfoglia gli episodi
Recensioni in evidenza
This is a fascinating series on the genealogy of famous people. I love the way these stories unfold layer by layer to reveal the drama that is humanity from the great wars, massive migrations, and religious persecution to stories of everyday life. Birth, census, marriage, property, court and death records provide factual information of those that came before us and are woven with general historical information that is known about the time period to bring to life ancestors who were not previously known. These stories are often poignant and emotional as we come to know personal struggles. They educate us today of the way life used to be; where young children often died from diseases that today are easily prevented, where prejudice was accepted as the norm and a lack of social safety nets led to destitution. It reminds us how far we have come. How medical advances such as vaccinations and contraception have improved lives by saving children from horrible diseases and helping families plan the size of families in order to better support them. For all that is wrong with media today, it can put a spotlight on abuses and human suffering which lead to social change today. It brings to mind that great quotation attributed to George Santayana and repeated by Winston Churchill "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
The BBC series is much better than the American version and it is telling that in the States it is referred to as a "reality show" where in the UK it is documentary. I rated the US version an 8 out of 10 for it's scripted feel and it's blatant commercial for Ancestry.com. I rate the UK version a 10 out of 10 for its more in depth analysis.
The BBC series is much better than the American version and it is telling that in the States it is referred to as a "reality show" where in the UK it is documentary. I rated the US version an 8 out of 10 for it's scripted feel and it's blatant commercial for Ancestry.com. I rate the UK version a 10 out of 10 for its more in depth analysis.
I used to enjoy this, but I'm finding it increasingly irritating now we're on series 22.
The recent episode featuring Andrew Garfield is a good example of what's wrong with this programme. His great-grandparents were part of a large Jewish family living in Poland in the early 20th century. What could possibly have happened to them? Garfield has to pretend that he doesn't know. Fortunately he is an actor so he's able to play along with the programme-makers. WDYTYA has told this same story now at least a dozen times.
Standard well-known bits of history are presented as if they are news. Apparently Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Wow, who knew?
Any opportunity to criticise the UK via a biased view of history is eagerly grasped.
For example, the story of the Easter rising in Ireland is gone over again and again, always presenting Irish terrorists as valiant freedom fighters and the British as evil oppressors (most recently in the Aisling Bea episode).
Whenever there's a black individual doing the show (which of course is quite frequently - Layton Williams in the latest series) they go to Jamaica, and again, acting talent is required as they feign horror at the discovery that one of their ancestors was a slave.
Occasionally it's interesting, for example when some ancestor did something significant. But more often it isn't. It's just an excuse for emotional misery-wallowing and political opinion-pushing.
The recent episode featuring Andrew Garfield is a good example of what's wrong with this programme. His great-grandparents were part of a large Jewish family living in Poland in the early 20th century. What could possibly have happened to them? Garfield has to pretend that he doesn't know. Fortunately he is an actor so he's able to play along with the programme-makers. WDYTYA has told this same story now at least a dozen times.
Standard well-known bits of history are presented as if they are news. Apparently Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Wow, who knew?
Any opportunity to criticise the UK via a biased view of history is eagerly grasped.
For example, the story of the Easter rising in Ireland is gone over again and again, always presenting Irish terrorists as valiant freedom fighters and the British as evil oppressors (most recently in the Aisling Bea episode).
Whenever there's a black individual doing the show (which of course is quite frequently - Layton Williams in the latest series) they go to Jamaica, and again, acting talent is required as they feign horror at the discovery that one of their ancestors was a slave.
Occasionally it's interesting, for example when some ancestor did something significant. But more often it isn't. It's just an excuse for emotional misery-wallowing and political opinion-pushing.
I have a fascination for history, particularly social history and I always find this show fascinating. They have done a huge range of people and the amount of work which must go into each show is staggering. I think it's a very engaging and human way to learn about history.
I'd just like to refer to one of the other posters on here and say that these people are generally not employees of the BBC so their political leanings are of no import. There is a long tradition of creative types who lean a little to the left, so I'm not sure why that comes as a shock, and a large number of the subjects (actors or otherwise) of this series are far from uneducated. I think what may have got lost in translation is exactly who some of the individuals in earlier series are. And perhaps their sense of humour. A large number of these people are well-known in the UK but perhaps not elsewhere. I believe that this has been picked up in other countries now as well and made with more relevant subjects.
One of the reasons I think it's so interesting in the UK is that it highlights how mixed the people living here are.
I'd just like to refer to one of the other posters on here and say that these people are generally not employees of the BBC so their political leanings are of no import. There is a long tradition of creative types who lean a little to the left, so I'm not sure why that comes as a shock, and a large number of the subjects (actors or otherwise) of this series are far from uneducated. I think what may have got lost in translation is exactly who some of the individuals in earlier series are. And perhaps their sense of humour. A large number of these people are well-known in the UK but perhaps not elsewhere. I believe that this has been picked up in other countries now as well and made with more relevant subjects.
One of the reasons I think it's so interesting in the UK is that it highlights how mixed the people living here are.
Who Do You Think You Are
Series 19
Sue Perkins was distractingly frenetic from the get go but as she got out and about as the history unfolded there was quite an emotional rollercoaster for everyone. The parallels of an interment camp and Nazis resettlement camp were marked and it was shocking to enter the Nazis programme of eugenics and aryan genetics.
This was a brilliant show and we learned much about the history. Sue wears her heart on a sleeve and we feel her pain in a visceral way. I'm giving this show a 10 outta 10 I was gripped.
Richard Osman, quite a national treasure, we learn that when his father walked out when he was 9 for another woman his mother cut off all relations with his side of the family, perhaps to the detriment of Richard's childhood. The show necessarily focuses on only his mothers side, which is only a partial story. Richard's grandfather clearly stepped up to be the male role model in his life much to his credit and his story was most poignant. 8 outta 10 from me, so much was missing!
Matt Lucas, I'm not sure why this show moved at a snails pace but it was bordering on stop. Matt led us through a terrible history of fleeing the Nazis and concentration camps were very few survived. It was awful and he held it together. It wasn't historically the best of shows so for me it was a 6 outta 10, we must never forget.
Anna Maxwell Martin, you had to laugh before any of the history was revealed Anna proclaimed everything about everyone and then was shown to have got it all wrong. Her need to embellish a back story was beyond irritating, however she got her comeuppance when her grandfather's was way beyond anything she could imagine. She remained fixated that people learn all their parenting off their parents, negating the influences of friends, neighbours, other relatives and a world full of professionals. Overall it was not very interesting history at best a 5 outta 10.
Ralf Little, great show and very interesting history, I'm giving this a 10 outta 10.
Series 19
Sue Perkins was distractingly frenetic from the get go but as she got out and about as the history unfolded there was quite an emotional rollercoaster for everyone. The parallels of an interment camp and Nazis resettlement camp were marked and it was shocking to enter the Nazis programme of eugenics and aryan genetics.
This was a brilliant show and we learned much about the history. Sue wears her heart on a sleeve and we feel her pain in a visceral way. I'm giving this show a 10 outta 10 I was gripped.
Richard Osman, quite a national treasure, we learn that when his father walked out when he was 9 for another woman his mother cut off all relations with his side of the family, perhaps to the detriment of Richard's childhood. The show necessarily focuses on only his mothers side, which is only a partial story. Richard's grandfather clearly stepped up to be the male role model in his life much to his credit and his story was most poignant. 8 outta 10 from me, so much was missing!
Matt Lucas, I'm not sure why this show moved at a snails pace but it was bordering on stop. Matt led us through a terrible history of fleeing the Nazis and concentration camps were very few survived. It was awful and he held it together. It wasn't historically the best of shows so for me it was a 6 outta 10, we must never forget.
Anna Maxwell Martin, you had to laugh before any of the history was revealed Anna proclaimed everything about everyone and then was shown to have got it all wrong. Her need to embellish a back story was beyond irritating, however she got her comeuppance when her grandfather's was way beyond anything she could imagine. She remained fixated that people learn all their parenting off their parents, negating the influences of friends, neighbours, other relatives and a world full of professionals. Overall it was not very interesting history at best a 5 outta 10.
Ralf Little, great show and very interesting history, I'm giving this a 10 outta 10.
We always knew that history was as much about ordinary people as about "the great and good", and the increased accessibility of British genealogical records has come to mean that everyone can check (and can afford to check) their family history in hours or days now, as opposed to the months or years it used to take. Genealogists of this new, far-wider category will be intimately aware how - as we go forward towards the middle of the 21st century, we are also - every last one of us - able to delve back in time to "create new history" - a particularly paradoxical and stunning reality of our times. A British format copied around the world (wherever records permit), "Who do you think you are?" has been both a product of the increased interest in genealogy and family history in the UK, and a major motor force behind the further development of this hobby-cum-obsession. Most people "want to know" - about who they are and where they came from, and the various celebrities that appear on the programme are mostly sufficiently interesting and sympathetic (in these most fundamental of circumstances at least) for us to care about their backgrounds. Indeed, it is virtually a rule that the family-history context portrays just about everybody in a positive/sympathetic light (even certain celebs one might otherwise have reservations about). We can't help our ancestors, we have to take the rough with the smooth, but we are a living part of that past heritage, while our ancestors are part of us - and in some ways this is a great leveller and a great conveyor of what it means to be human, and to feel human sympathy for somebody else. Hence emotion is never far below the surface in episodes of "Who do you think you are?", and this is a powerful incentive encouraging us to watch on. At the same time, we are given bite-size, but extremely helpful, incisive and skilfully abbreviated aspects of British (and therefore often also world) history, which makes cumulative watching of the series a vastly educational and also enfranchising experience, without it ever assuming a hectoring or lecturing or patronising tone. A great plus in this respect is the simultaneously warm and authoritative tone adopted by programme narrators David Morrissey, Mark Strong and Cherie Lunghi. While the featured celebrities do quite a lot of the talking/presenting themselves - alongside a vast pantheon of invited/consulted experts from every conceivable field, the very significant contribution to the overall product that the narrators make is not to be denied, and the potential educational impact of the programme is virtually limitless. This reflects the fact that it is mostly the history of society and of ordinary people that is highlighted - albeit firmly in the context of national or global trends and world events. Which shapes which is an interesting philosophical question, extremely well explored in what are now (as of 2015) no fewer than 12 series of this magnificent programme. Somewhere down the line, there is also a gently patriotic thread in there - but done with huge subtlety, indeed perhaps purely spontaneously, given that the United Kingdom HAS kept (most of) its people (and many incomers) safe for centuries, and HAS given them at least some chances to better themselves, as the series cannot help but show. There is no obvious reason why this format should ever run out of steam, given the fact that people and their background cannot fail to interest us as human beings, and given that there will always be new stories from history to be uncovered and told, as ostensibly dry documents are brought to vibrant life as stories from history in what is a synergistic and powerful combination of celebrities, talking heads, narrators, beautiful and often stunning or poignant visual images and sensitive music. There is a seamless whole here that is something rather unique in TV history. It would be so easy to distort or unbalance it, but so far the makers have managed to avoid that - and every possible credit to them for the landmark achievement.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe series abandoned an episode on Michael Parkinson because his family history was deemed to be too boring.
- Curiosità sui creditiThe opening titles for each season show all the participants for that season, each in front of objects or buildings which are relevant to their story. The order of the participants changes from one episode to the next, with the subject of the episode always being the final one in the sequence.
- ConnessioniFeatured in This Morning: Episodio datato 16 luglio 2009 (2009)
- Colonne sonoreFond Reflections
Written by Jeff Meegan and David Tobin
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How many seasons does Who Do You Think You Are? have?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti