This is a 3-part BBC follow-up to Genius of the Ancient World (2015). Host Bettany Hughes examines three big thinkers who ushered in the modern 20th century; Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. There is an inherent improvement over the previous series. I know very little about the lives of these three famous names. Even their groundbreaking works are only bumper sticker slogans to me. So a lot of this series is new information and that's very compelling. In a way, these three episodes are much darker, more tragic, and more human. That also makes their stories more complex and more fascinating. They can be depressing. They have powerful echoes throughout the modern world. It's an interesting dive into these big names.
13 Reviews
The remarkable relevance of Marx, Nietzsche and Freud
cosmonema18 July 2016
Bettany Hughes, a historian and author, takes viewers on a journey into the tumultuous times of late 19th century, when 3 particular intellectuals perfected their mind-boggling ideas. Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud are examples of those larger-than-life thinkers who, through their penetrating insights into human condition, crystallized their ideas and ended up transforming the world and ushering in the 20th century. The world was never the same.
As a huge fan of factually accurate and documentaries (e.g., Sir Ken Clark and Carl Sagan) with an educational as well as reflective bent, I loved this 3-part series. Interspersed with beautiful visuals of visits of Ms. Hughes to many of the actual places of interest in the lives of these gentlemen, the narrator also interviews several leading scholars on the various aspects of their intellectual and personal life. I can't recommend it enough.
As a huge fan of factually accurate and documentaries (e.g., Sir Ken Clark and Carl Sagan) with an educational as well as reflective bent, I loved this 3-part series. Interspersed with beautiful visuals of visits of Ms. Hughes to many of the actual places of interest in the lives of these gentlemen, the narrator also interviews several leading scholars on the various aspects of their intellectual and personal life. I can't recommend it enough.
Just Who Was Marx?
dbrayshaw16 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I just completed viewing the first biography of Karl Marx from this triple-bio documentary and was overwhelmed by its ability to cause me to pause for its entire length to take in the information it provides, especially to one like me, an absolute novice regarding Marx's life.
That he was a determined man who had insight enough to found the view that capitalist society is based on the exploitation of the proletariat (workers) and industrial profit, holds very true, even today, as I see it.
Being the sufferer of a terrible disease that caused him painful boils all over his body, yet still maintaining his all-consuming purpose makes him, to me, a man born with a most absorbing vision.
Getting his first airing of his assault against capitalism, with the aid of Fredrick Engels, his close friend, through a self published street paper was, at first thought, a bright idea. Sadly, censorship, being alive and well at that time within the hardline bourgeoisie, kept his publication to one issue. But that was not enough to stop him.
As a Christian, I find Marx's notion that religion, especially Christianity, has anything at all to do in keeping people attached to, or essentially prisoners of, the capitalist machine appears to be true, but it needs some balance.
Yes, Jesus did mention the poor, stating that "you will always have them with you," but He encouraged those with more to give to those with less; in other words, if you give to them, you give to Me. In fact, the First Church existed "with all things in common", which was a kind of God-centered communism. What one had, he would share with another, and what the other had, he would give to a neighbor. This sharing is based on altruism, not exploitation, which was the central core of Christian society then.
But Marx saw it differently. Religion, for him, was "the opium of the people". It kept them tied to the ways of whatever government was in power. No religion is truth, he thought, nor can religion help man -- only imprison him in ignorance.
Inequality, in any fashion, may seem unjust. But, as I see it, with TV and movie generated standards in appearance, finance, recognition and expectation thrown at us on a daily basis, the general population is steadily evolving into the vision of advertisers who reach to satisfy youthful tastes, not government demand.
Marx was a great thinker of his time, although not one who could envision the coming of great businesses and corporations that are today the owners of the political capitalist system. What would he have done today to provoke change? Insist on a second Russian revolution in all countries, even if it took only seventy years to collapse on its own? I know I will research Marx's papers after watching this biography, especially his first writings on his view of capitalism, then, perhaps, onto his Communist Manifesto, which, as I was told, necessitates very dedicated reading and inspection.
Had Marx realized, through the consequence of his adultery that produced an illegitimate son who later died, along with three of his other children who too perished, that it was a father's God-given duty to provide for the needs of his family, they would have lived. Instead, he could only envision his own massive readership, even if it meant living in filth and squalor.
Later in life, after his wife received inheritance money, and Engels too acquired an inheritance, the Marx family lived nice, middle class lives.
I highly recommend this segment of this three part documentary series. It is excellently written, produced and is enormously teachable.
That he was a determined man who had insight enough to found the view that capitalist society is based on the exploitation of the proletariat (workers) and industrial profit, holds very true, even today, as I see it.
Being the sufferer of a terrible disease that caused him painful boils all over his body, yet still maintaining his all-consuming purpose makes him, to me, a man born with a most absorbing vision.
Getting his first airing of his assault against capitalism, with the aid of Fredrick Engels, his close friend, through a self published street paper was, at first thought, a bright idea. Sadly, censorship, being alive and well at that time within the hardline bourgeoisie, kept his publication to one issue. But that was not enough to stop him.
As a Christian, I find Marx's notion that religion, especially Christianity, has anything at all to do in keeping people attached to, or essentially prisoners of, the capitalist machine appears to be true, but it needs some balance.
Yes, Jesus did mention the poor, stating that "you will always have them with you," but He encouraged those with more to give to those with less; in other words, if you give to them, you give to Me. In fact, the First Church existed "with all things in common", which was a kind of God-centered communism. What one had, he would share with another, and what the other had, he would give to a neighbor. This sharing is based on altruism, not exploitation, which was the central core of Christian society then.
But Marx saw it differently. Religion, for him, was "the opium of the people". It kept them tied to the ways of whatever government was in power. No religion is truth, he thought, nor can religion help man -- only imprison him in ignorance.
Inequality, in any fashion, may seem unjust. But, as I see it, with TV and movie generated standards in appearance, finance, recognition and expectation thrown at us on a daily basis, the general population is steadily evolving into the vision of advertisers who reach to satisfy youthful tastes, not government demand.
Marx was a great thinker of his time, although not one who could envision the coming of great businesses and corporations that are today the owners of the political capitalist system. What would he have done today to provoke change? Insist on a second Russian revolution in all countries, even if it took only seventy years to collapse on its own? I know I will research Marx's papers after watching this biography, especially his first writings on his view of capitalism, then, perhaps, onto his Communist Manifesto, which, as I was told, necessitates very dedicated reading and inspection.
Had Marx realized, through the consequence of his adultery that produced an illegitimate son who later died, along with three of his other children who too perished, that it was a father's God-given duty to provide for the needs of his family, they would have lived. Instead, he could only envision his own massive readership, even if it meant living in filth and squalor.
Later in life, after his wife received inheritance money, and Engels too acquired an inheritance, the Marx family lived nice, middle class lives.
I highly recommend this segment of this three part documentary series. It is excellently written, produced and is enormously teachable.
Amazing! I wish there were more episodes
chadrisrael16 July 2020
Excellent
katayoun_rezaiamiri15 November 2020
Disaster Documentary
SPARIKAN10 July 2020
Terrible camera work but full of information
angiegoodnight15 January 2020
I love all of the information that is presented but the camera bothered me so much that I got most of the way through the first episode before I had to turn it off and switch to something else. On top of the akward and distracting camera, there's A LOT of footage of things that don't relate to the topic at all. Very dissapointing. I wanted to watch this.
A misunderstanding of good dissemination
movie2343 April 2020
I watched the first episode about Marx and I just have to mention my dissapointment of this production.
The idea to explore the great thinkers of the western modern world is brilliant. But if this production cared about learning the audience about Marx they should have focused less on the camera panorama, the narrator and settings.
I could not see this first episode without losing focus from the story of Marx because they producers behind this show obviously have learned some filming technicques they thought would improve the storytelling. The narrator keeps appearing in strange places like in a taxi, a train, a roof and in front af the Notre Dame and so on. Yes, I know the narrator follows in the footsteps of Marx but it seems like the focus is more on her journey instead of Marx's journey. Actually I think you can see this show just to study how obvious a production over do storytelling with a camera and a narrator.
Im sorry but my expectations was high because the idea was great....
The idea to explore the great thinkers of the western modern world is brilliant. But if this production cared about learning the audience about Marx they should have focused less on the camera panorama, the narrator and settings.
I could not see this first episode without losing focus from the story of Marx because they producers behind this show obviously have learned some filming technicques they thought would improve the storytelling. The narrator keeps appearing in strange places like in a taxi, a train, a roof and in front af the Notre Dame and so on. Yes, I know the narrator follows in the footsteps of Marx but it seems like the focus is more on her journey instead of Marx's journey. Actually I think you can see this show just to study how obvious a production over do storytelling with a camera and a narrator.
Im sorry but my expectations was high because the idea was great....
Curious as how all supposed "genius" in modern world are all europeans
reviewmaker13 July 2019
I have read quite a-lot about the "Geniuses" mentioned in this series. It baffles me to see the amount of ignorance the makers of the show has about the relevance of the thinkers mentioned in this series. All three of them belong to the school of suspicion which to put it crudely had a very cynical view of the human condition and human society. They are the ones who provided the tools and analysis to deconstruct the social relationships of the society they were born into. Here Freud takes an approach focused on the individual. Regarding the applications of their ideologies and philosophy, two of them (viz. Marx and Nietzsche) greatly influenced the regimes that mass murdered their own people in the 20th century and at times these sufferings can be traced back to the writings these geniuses. For those who are curious about those regimes, they were the Communists and the Nazis. We know what happened to those regimes in the end. As for the writings of Freud, since he worked in a rather stringent scientific discipline, he analysis were soon discarded or greatly modified by the later practitioners of his field. Carl Jung being one of them which is ironic since he was his student once.
Very few of the Marx and Nietzsche writings can provide an insight into the native societies and people other than the european contingent which is reasonable as they never attempted to. It is their students who insist and then go on to great lengths to make their works universally applicable. Freud is an exception here since his work was centered on the human mind rather than societies or cultures.
As it with reality not being black and white, they do provide some penetrating insights into some aspects of the human condition but those aren't enough to put them on a pedestal as the show attempts. This show is a continuing example of modern writers and scholars having a leftist bend in their outlook which certainly doesn't provide a complete picture. The thinkers mentioned in the previous iteration of this show (Genius of the Ancient World), which too has its flaws of taking a western perspective on Buddha and Confucius, all had arguably a more positive view and impact on the human society at large than the thinkers mentioned in this series which is disappointing as I had high hopes for this iteration. The choice of thinkers between the two iterations really shows the sad state of affairs of today's modern world. Overall, very disappointed with the choice of thinkers and the narrative of the show.
Inaccurate, misleading and subtly manipulative
thebluekey-517431 May 2020
I only watched the first episode, and that's enough.
Packed with inaccurate information, some being not circumstantiated. It would appear the whole point is to make the viewer think Marx was mentally ill and an alcoholic. Political statements disguised as historical facts. A mixture between superficiality and the worst manipulative journalism.
Bettany Hugues is a bit dumb
ghais-5287715 July 2019
Very badly made. Absolutely nothing is the mood of the series , the void. Flat mood , boring. I just watched Nietzsche's part and Bettany Hugues don't understand the ambiguity leading the genius mind of Nietzsche. I don't recommand at all. One hour for that is unbelievable.
Completely misunderstoot
neroplasschaert5 December 2021
They talk about Marx as if he was a mass killer... They completely misunderstood his ideas, this is misinformation! It was the dictators of communist states that we're the "bad" guys, not Marx. If we would follow his ideologies life would be good so please don't watch this!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
