Â鶹ԼÅÄ

In the latest in our series of posts explaining how and why we make the programmes we do, Head of Development, Religion and Ethics, Mike Smith explains some of the challenges in making Â鶹ԼÅÄ Four's series Genius of the Ancient World. 

What you do and how were you involved in the Â鶹ԼÅÄ Four TV series, Genius of the Ancient World?

I'm Mike Smith, executive producer of the series. Whilst the programme was being made I was the Head of Development for Religion and Ethics, but since them I've now become head of development for Â鶹ԼÅÄ Arts.

What attracted you to the idea to making the series?

There has been a continuing interest for most of the last of the 60 or 70 years an interest in this particular moment - approximately 5th century BC. It was a time when the way the world worked changed dramatically.

Up until that moment people had been told that the way the world worked was that the pantheon Gods were pretty much seen as being in charge of people’s lives. Gods who had sacrifices made to them or needed to be worshipped to ensure particular outcomes in daily life.

But, social and economic factors meant big change: that people were trading with each other, transacting with one another over goods. This led to them understanding that, for example, if you were trading goods with one another – you needed to be able to trust those you traded with. It was at this moment in time that trust between individuals became more potent an idea, and therefore the idea of 'human agency' became very very important. This moment in time is referred to as the 'axial age' - meaning that this pivotal moment was one when the world turned on its axis.

If you're making religion and ethics programmes then the point when the big faiths represented in the UK begin are generally regarded in storytelling terms as the 'year zeros'. But where the idea of human agency is concerned, the year 5 BC doesn't really lock on to the other more commonly regarded 'year zeros'. It’s not usually the moment of the start of the story.

So how could we illustrate this pivotal moment and tell a good story around it? We realised that the three lives that seemed to connect together - Buddha, Confucius and Socrates - helped explain this axial moment and resonated with present-day people. For example, Socrates (psychologists and others in medical science still use what is known today as Socratic questioning), Buddhism is on the rise in present-day popularity. Confucianism is also gaining interest because of the rise in China's prominence in the world. All of these things made for an interesting and new piece of storytelling. Bettany Hughes, our presenter, had written a book about one of our philosphers, Socrates, so from that point on it seemed like this was the making of a strong idea.

What were the challenges?



One could make jokes about philosophy - just look at - and how it isn't usually picked naturally as a subject for television. The subject is traditionally perceived to be studied by 'clever' people or academics.

But really, what does philosophy mean? It means the love of ideas. When you start examining the ideas philosophers were thinking about - like, how do you live a good life? Is money a good or a bad thing? Is democracy a good or a bad thing? - ideas that were infiltrating into society of the day, these would have been the things we were asking ourselves if we had been living at that time. They're also questions we're still asking ourselves.



So, the challenge to begin with was communicating the enthusiasm people have for the subject. And the answer to the challenge was to take a biographical approach to how these individuals and examine how it was that they started to think about these ideas. What we realised was that as soon as you have a biography of an individual (or three) then you have a framework and the details that go with it. And that gave us an opportunity to visit the places these people lived in and illustrate the story we're telling about them and their ideas discovering quite a few things about these people as a result.

For example, the Socrates we discovered was a world away from the buff, curly haired individual we see on a pedestal. Socrates was a soldier. We started asking: what do as a teenager? Where was he hanging out? What can we learn about the real him? As a teenager he fought. He occupied the dodgier parts of Athens where the prostitutes were hanging out. There was a whole set of details which took us away from the distant figure on a pedestal and turned him into someone who had a story. At which point the ideas become much more real and relevant and make them similar as something someone might be discussing in every day life.

This seemed like a fresh approach to philosophy and it seemed like it was the love of the ideas which was at the heart of the proposition and for Â鶹ԼÅÄ Four. The channel is the place for this kind of programme. I think that makes this a unique thing. There was a sense that we wanted to do something really properly for Â鶹ԼÅÄ Four.

Why is this a programme which the Â鶹ԼÅÄ would make, do you think?

I think you need to look a little deeper and ask why would Â鶹ԼÅÄ Four make something like this? For me, the channel is a place where the audience knows that if you tune in you will get something which stretches your intellectual curiosity, isn't hard work, isn't going to feel dutiful. But, what it will do is take an entry point where you have a level of interest and it will take you intelligently and thoughtfully into making you feel that you have spent the time wisely. And that you're not going to get a superficial unpacking of something that's going to be a flash in the pan, but instead you'll get some meaningful, long lasting and memorable. I think that's quite a good definition of what Â鶹ԼÅÄ Four is.

This programme is a partnership with the Open University. What does a partnership with the OU bring to a programme maker?

It brings a number of different things. Often as a programme maker of a long-form factual programme you are aware that you have a mainstream universal audience that you are speaking to and you have a specialist or academic audience who you hope you are not making them shout at the television. The best of our programmes actually nourish and engage. As programme makers we aspire to both the general viewer and also the specialist who will know a lot about the subject. Not only does the Open University perfectly reflect that dual aspiration, but it helps realise it too.

In practical terms, the OU can provide us with editorial support. Having an academic associated with the project who can look at our scripts and finished programmes and check them, or perhaps give us advice along the way, or challenge us if we're repeating entrenched views or if our editorial is in need of further contextualisation is really valuable. In a sense the partnership gives us an opportunity to formalise the relationship between specialist teams of academics and programme makers.

The Â鶹ԼÅÄ gets OU expertise within the team of the project. Sometimes we'll get a particular brief from the OU for a particular programme, and in return we'll work to get them material which might be useful for their study courses. We'll work in such a way that the OU academics are an extension of our team. From our perspective that means we feel as though we have an extra level of support that we wouldn't normally get.

And of course, it's a co-production relationship too so on a small number of projects the OU are contributing budget to the programmes that we make. Effectively what we're doing suits what they're doing. Our common interests overlap. We can benefit one another.

• Genius of the Ancient World starts on Wednesday at 9pm on Â鶹ԼÅÄ Four.