|
|
School's back in session! Robert Wuhl, the eminent thespian, scribe and pundit, regales us with more of the stories that made up America... and the stories that America simply made up!
Tell us what you thought of the show.
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
8/6/07
|
|
(31 of 46)
Aug 6, 2007 5:01 PM
|
I was never a big fan or Wuhl - but he did a really entertaining job with 101/201 episodes of this show and this material.
As another person mentioned, it made me want to investigate some history myself.
I found several references to the Man-o-War/Upset race and the origin of the word 'upset' as a sports reference, as seen in the "I Sh_t You Not" segment
However, as the New York Times databases and wordorigins.org (http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/upset) describes, the "legend" is incorrectly attributed to the horse race... which leads directly into Wuhl's "Print the Legend" routine!!
Good material for the 301 episode hopefully to come!!
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
4/22/07
|
|
(30 of 46)
Aug 2, 2007 2:16 PM
|
I just wanted to respond to your assertion that the crowd was "queued to laugh." I was in the audience myself for the taping and we were not cued in the least. You may have found the show boring and un-amusing, but everyone in attendance had a great time.
I was actually really amazed at how little direction we were given. We were seated in the room, and told to have a good time. The directors told us that if we enjoyed the material, we shouldn't be afraid of laughing or reacting to it. That was it.
We all had a lot of fun, and found Wuhl very engaging and funny, so we all cracked up. I must admit I've been a fan of his since his movie "Open Season". It was very natural, and now I have the added pleasure of random friends seeing my stupid face on tv. All in all a great afternoon.
--
Edited by prydekitty at 08/02/2007 11:18 AM
--
Edited by prydekitty at 08/02/2007 11:19 AM
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
8/1/07
|
|
(29 of 46)
Aug 1, 2007 3:02 AM
|
|
This has to be one of the worst pieces of garbage HBO has ever put out. Amusing anecdotes. Please amusing in the least. How many times was that crowd queued to laugh? There is no way they could have actually thought that this douche bag was funny. I kept watching hoping waiting for this guy to make me laugh just once. Never happened. I can't believe HBO gave this clown a special. This C lister is so bad his biggest references on IMDB are Arliss(never seen one episode or seen marketing for it) also such notable roles such as "angry customer" and "man with lighter". I saw Bob Saget on after this show. Now that could have actually been funny. This guy sucks and so does HBO. I'm ending my subscription to it after I finish this. Besides the Sopranos is done and thats all it had.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
7/29/07
|
|
(28 of 46)
Jul 29, 2007 8:46 AM
|
|
Hbo has a new hit on it's hands! I feel it's a "Must See" of new shows on Tv. Wish it would become a weekly series like Real Time W/ Bill Maher. If the adult language and content of the show was toned down some, I think the younger viewing audience would enjoy it as much as I do. It's a shame that the producer didn't have them in mind when considering the show's rating before it was first aired. I believe that the younger ones are really missing out on such a great true/untrue lesson in history or "the juicy parts of History" that teachers tend to leave out. But then again, it is Hbo.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
7/29/07
|
|
(27 of 46)
Jul 29, 2007 8:44 AM
|
|
Hbo has a new hit on it's hands! I feel it's a "Must See" of new shows on Tv. Wish it would become a weekly series like Real Time W/ Bill Maher. If the adult language and content of the show was toned down some, I think the younger viewing audience would enjoy it as much as I do. It's a shame that the producer didn't have them in mind when considering the show's rating before it was first aired. I believe that the younger ones are really missing out on such a great true/untrue lesson in history or "the juicy parts of History" that teachers tend to leave out. But then again, it is Hbo.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
7/27/07
|
|
(26 of 46)
Jul 27, 2007 12:59 PM
|
I think what people have to remember is that this was ENTERTAINMENT! It's not a historical doc, it not really a classroom, it's an entertainment program. I thought it was superb, fresh and very ENTERTAINING. As for our friend who thinks Mr. Wuhl is a washed up comedian...if getting your own special on HBO is washed up, then there's a line with a lot of comedians waiting in it to be THAT washed up.
I hope we get more possitions!
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
7/25/07
|
|
(25 of 46)
Jul 25, 2007 3:14 AM
|
I watched this show and I did enjoy it, but also I remembered it. I am currently going to college and history class can be sometimes boring. Some teachers, instructors, professors, ect. have made history exactly what it is, dead. Mr. Wuhl, even though he may not have all of the facts, can keep the attention of a room full of people for 29 minutes, and yes I do believe if he wanted to, he could keep their attention even longer. He found similarities between what happened in the past and tied it in with what happens in today's world.
Another point that I would like to make is that Mr. Wuhl is a comedian first and foremost, so we should take everything that he says about history with a grain of salt, the size of that grain is up to you. Yes, I agree that he did not disclose all of the historical facts. But, what comedian does? Most comedians get their material from either personal experience or from past current events, and from those current events the stuff that they can use is taken out and what they can't use is thrown to the wayside.
Notice also that they call the show "Assume The Position With Mr. Wuhl 201." They do not refer to him as Professor or Doctor, just Mister. This means that people could choose not to listen or watch the program. All what it requires is that people change the channel or turn the T.V. off.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
7/24/07
|
|
(24 of 46)
Jul 24, 2007 4:27 AM
|
I hate to say this but I did not enjoy this show. I am a history major and my emphasis is presidential history. He picked bits and pieces about the Presidents to make his show seem more interesting. For example, Franklin Pierce. He neglected to say that his son was killed in front of his eyes in a train accident. It's hard to laugh at a tradegy like that.
You can't chose bits and pieces of history to tell. It is easy to make someone look bad when you aren't telling the whole story. If he actually wants to educate people, he needs to spend more time telling the whole story than trying to make people laugh. But if all he wants to do is make people laugh, he should move on to something actually funny. He shouldn't make stabs at the Presidents, past or present, unless he could do their job and do it better.
|
|
|
Posts:
354
Registered:
2/1/06
|
|
(23 of 46)
Jul 21, 2007 9:02 PM
|
I watch Bill Maher, and I have to say this: In my opinion, Bill Maher appears to be a champion of each and every American policy out there compared to this fellow. This man—this, in my opinion, “washed up,” second-rate comedian—is highly anti-American, as is the whole show, in my opinion.
I find myself watching—just as I find myself watching shows like the O’rielly Factor, when, of course, Olbermann (and I’m finding him a bit suspect, too) is on commercial and Hannity and Colmes—this show to, instead of nodding my head to each and every word he speaks, find faults in it.
I like how he criticizes what other writers say about certain people in history—like our past presidents—by saying their wrong. How are they wrong? How do you know their wrong? What? Is it because some other writer said their wrong? How does he know the stories of what America made up?
Oh, it might have been something he read at the New York library, which he walks out of, I believe, in every (well, I believe there’s been only two episodes of this show) beginning of this show. Provided that he says America made up certain stories because another writer said so, couldn’t that writer also be making up stories of what America allegedly made up?
I’m guessing he’s picking certain parts of certain stories which back up his point or the idea he likes.
--
Edited by HB04Life at 07/21/2007 6:22 PM
|
|
|
Posts:
4
Registered:
7/20/07
|
|
(22 of 46)
Jul 20, 2007 11:14 PM
|
I think this might clear this up about the election of 1800 which I copied from MSN Encarta: The Republicans again nominated Jefferson for president in 1800. For vice president they nominated Aaron Burr, who had built up a strong Republican following in New York state. President Adams and Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina were the Federalist candidates.
The Federalists campaigned against Jefferson as an infidel who would destroy religion and set up the Goddess of Reason in its place, as extremists in the French Revolution had attempted to do. However, the political tide in the United States was swinging away from the aristocratic Federalists to those advocating a more democratic form of government, and the Republicans won a clear victory. Jefferson and Burr each polled 73 electoral votes. Adams, hampered by the opposition of Hamilton, came next with 65 votes.
The tie in the electoral vote caused one of the gravest crises in American constitutional history. The electors, in voting for Jefferson or Burr, had not specified whether their vote was for president or vice president. Therefore, despite his being his party's vice presidential candidate, Burr had as many votes for the office of president as Jefferson had.
The Constitution provides that in case no candidate in a presidential election wins a majority of the electoral votes, the election must go to the House of Representatives, where each state has one vote. To win, Jefferson or Burr had to have the support of a majority of the 16 states. To further complicate matters, this was a lame-duck Congress, meaning that many of its members had been defeated in the recent election and were in office only because their terms had not expired. Congress was dominated by Federalists who had to choose between two Republican candidates. From February 11, when the voting began, to February 16, neither Jefferson nor Burr could win the required nine states. Because he disliked Burr even more than he did Jefferson, Hamilton favored Jefferson, but most Federalists abhorred Jefferson. The crisis was resolved when a group of Federalists, led by James A. Bayard of Delaware, came to the realization that if an orderly transfer of government power was to be achieved, the majority party must have its choice as president. Therefore, on February 17 the deadlock was broken. On the 36th ballot, Jefferson won the support of ten states and was elected president. Burr, who had the support of only four states, became vice president.
Technically, Jefferson was voted into office by the House of Representatives because Jefferson and Burr both had 73 votes and tied. It is a very unusally situation as running for the office of President was very different during the founders time than today. One should remember only wealthy land owners obtained the right to vote. What's ironic about this particular event most people in Congress did not like Jefferson, and both candidates were Republicans, but Hamilton argues the lesser of two evils. This also sets the event between Burr and Hamilton in motion three years later with the famous duel.
Are there inaccuracies with Robert Wuhl's research? The answer is yes because Pierce was involved in the Mexican War. However, there is a larger point at hand, it is possible that Robert Wuhl wants the viewer to check the information for themselves as it's not a good idea to get your information from one source. He makes the point of saying based on a true story thereby making interesting for the person listening to read more about it. It also makes the point that when Pierce can have a story about his life written, but getting people to read is another matter. Perhaps Wuhl had the same idea about the viewers watching his piece. As the viewer, it is still up to us to educate ourselves with the edification of history. He's making entertaining to make us more curious to learn more, and I think it's an ingenius way of doing it.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
7/19/07
|
|
(21 of 46)
Jul 19, 2007 12:45 PM
|
While I found this and Wuhl's previous show entertaining, I find it hard to believe it has a TV14 rating and was shown at 8PM. Within the first 25 minutes there were multiple uses of f*ck, p*ssy, s*it, and a graphic showing erections in men's pants. I am surprised that this did not get a TVMA rating instead.
--
Edited by rtcooke1 at 07/19/2007 9:48 AM
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
7/18/07
|
|
(20 of 46)
Jul 18, 2007 9:00 PM
|
Mr. Wuhl & HBO: You could do all Americans a tremendous service by writing a series of half-hour shows that looked at various episodes in our history from your unique perspective. "201" is what students will listen to! Well Done!
Hogdriver
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
7/17/07
|
|
(19 of 46)
Jul 17, 2007 6:02 PM
|
|
Robert Wuhl is terrific! Please keep this show coming. It should be like Bill Mahr's Real Time. . .once a week!
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
7/16/07
|
|
(18 of 46)
Jul 16, 2007 2:55 PM
|
I am going to have to second the motion forwarded by thomaspained. Was it too hard to take some starving American History professor lacking tenure (there's more than you think) out to lunch and do a little fact-checking? Hell, just look at an Encyclopedia. It's not like you wouldn't have seen his presidential campaign slogan "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" celebrating his war record from over 30 years prior to the Mexican War. I am going to have to Assume The Position not knowing your country's history is as American as apple pie.
Also, Aaron Burr did not tie Jefferson for president. They ran on the same ticket, with Aaron Burr as the vice-presidential candidate, in hopes of avoiding the error of the previous election which had Adams as president and Jefferson as vice-president because the runner-up got the VP position (imagine Gore being Bush's VP). The issue is the Electoral College was resolved by having half the votes go to the presidential candidate, and half to the vice-presidential candidate. Unfortunately, Burr (who is correctly identified as a lousy leader), attempted to take the presidency by saying he had received half the votes, requiring an extraordinary session in the House of Representatives and a further reform of the electoral college to a system we are more familiar with today.
Other than a few errors, the show is pretty good and demonstrates some nice themes coursing throughout the whole of American history, as per most HBO productions, with the notable exception of Arliss. Arliss sucked. Do not put it On-Demand unless you put both seasons of The Wire up there first.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(17 of 46)
Jul 15, 2007 6:10 PM
|
This is a great show. Wuhl is at his comoic genius. There was a celebrity contributer during the show that I can't remeber. She is a young woman, whom I believe used to have a show on NPR. Can someone tell who she is?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
