I started watching this programme with not much expectation,feeling it would be slow & boring but how wrong I was.
David Olusoga obviously has a passion for this house & takes us through all of 62 Faulkner Streets residents & stories,which on paper sounds uninspiring to say the least,but the idea just works.
With David,s calm & demeaning manner he makes us see images in our heads of its many residents & how they lived & died in this house.
If you haven,t seen this programme yet please do & hopefully it will come back for another series as there are thousands more stories out there to be told.
13 Reviews
Enthralling piece of history
jongibbo1 May 2019
I did not see the first series , but being from Tyneside myself, this was a must watch. I am glad I did watch it, as I found it absolutely fascinating. Tracing the history of one house through the lives of it's residents is a simple idea brilliantly executed.
I cannot recommend this program enough.
A Perfect Format Through Time
owen-watts22 February 2022
It really is a perfect template for a history TV show - choosing a single house in England (hopefully the wider UK in further series) and chronologically charting history through the lens of its various occupants. I missed it at launch and only tuned in when they came to my city - which I quickly regretted and went back to hoover up the other series. I adore Olusoga and his detailed explorations of the lives of past people are warm, personal and deeply empathetic. As a former archaeologist there is not a better window into the past than the "ordinary person" and you get some glorious incidents, observations and snapshots of life this way. More than that my own particular interest is architectural archaeology, and how all old buildings carry the scars of their former lives - so not the people, but the house itself acts as a time machine. Wonderful. I want a billion series of this and a thousand spin-offs. I'd watch them all and command my descendants to do likewise, regardless of which house they end up.
History told in a new way
cajthomas11 February 2018
Fascinating programme about the lives of ordinary people,who in many cases led quite extraordinary lives, the common thread being that they all lived at one time at 58/62 Falkner Street, built in 1841.The stories illustrate history in a very different way, more real seen through the lives of these residents. Amazing amount of research to uncover such a wealth of detail about those people against the changing backdrop of Liverpool. Great series, hope it will return at a new address.
Amazing
rosiekevans13 April 2018
Absolutely enthralled
emmarosepollard26 April 2019
I started watching this program yesterday and absolutely love it already. It's fascinating, well told and David Olusoga has a real interest and love for the program. Highly recommend to all history lovers or people interested in the past.
Everyone how ever humble has a story to tell
Kit-Angel10 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I really enjoy this programme the stories are mostly of everyday working class people although sometimes grander lives are documented. The more grand the person I expect there is often a better paper trail so the story can be filled out better although in saying that as much care is put into the telling of the stories of the many working class families in the show. They are often uplifting and at times very sad. It's fascinating to watch as lives lived Centuries ago are brought to life in vivid detail. Whilst obviously some guess work has to be made to fill in gaps and tell a good story it never falls into sentimentality , well not too much. The house in Newcastle was interesting to me as I was born in that city and my parents lived just a stone throws form the house featured. Although we moved when I was very young. I have lived in some very old houses and often wonder who lived there before I expect everyone does. I once lived in a grand Georgian town house in Brighton in Sussex Square although long since dividend into flats in its heyday it must have been a gorgeous home. I know that some of the houses had interesting and famous owners at one time and some were used by the Canadian airforce in WW2. Perhaps the next season could do a Brighton home ? Must be many of the grand houses long since made into flats that have a interesting story to tell.
Season 4 Nears perfection
martimusross1 October 2021
A House Through Time.
Season 4
Episode 1, this was a great start, a fabulous high Victorian house with clearly a rich history. I would make two minor points, the death penalty exists in societies that have less enforcement and hence tend towards retributivism or cannot financially support long term incarceration hence deportation. David fails to mention here, not what the current woke views are on child labour and the death penalty but what did the Victorians actually think about these things at the time (text and context) Secondly the pace and repetition of the show, it was glacially slow and everything was repeated three times, come on let's crack on with this at a pace, I heard it the first time, you do have a knowing adult audience here.
Episode 2, was a total triumph, the pace picked up, just tons of detail, perspective and context. David's conclusions and analysis were brilliant in using the occupants of the house as a window into different occupations, countries, diseases and customs. This was history brought to life!
Episode 3, David covered 3 people connected to our house, he very cleverly chose people from the various families that would allow him to show facets of domestic or world history. Whilst totally delightful this technique runs into problems when the history becomes overwhelmingly rich and, we the viewer, are snatched away with just a fleeting glance. Mostly David gets the balance right but sometimes, like this episode, I felt cheated. My suggestion, if it really gets fascinating allow one person to take over a complete episode on indeed tack on another episode, also I would want to immerse David in the trenches, shove him into uniform and strap him in a straitjacket, it all may sound flippant but it all makes history alive. I really thought David quite brilliantly analysed the documentary evidence and not once conjectured beyond the detail. The same cannot be said of the other contributors "Rayon was the democratisation of fashion", well that's not true, or Theosophy was a place where "women had a voice as they had no voice elsewhere", again not true. Both these viewpoints are woke tropes and beyond what they thought at the time.
Episode 4, David surpassed himself here, waxing lyrical about the 130 past residents of the house, it was a very moving conclusion to a spectacular series of programmes.
Now looking back over the last few series it is self-evident David rivals Mary with his skills and abilities in bringing history to life. These shows represent the very best of BBC broadcasting and their ability to invest in a new idea, no other Chanel could achieve this level of excellence.
Roll on series 5.
Season 4
Episode 1, this was a great start, a fabulous high Victorian house with clearly a rich history. I would make two minor points, the death penalty exists in societies that have less enforcement and hence tend towards retributivism or cannot financially support long term incarceration hence deportation. David fails to mention here, not what the current woke views are on child labour and the death penalty but what did the Victorians actually think about these things at the time (text and context) Secondly the pace and repetition of the show, it was glacially slow and everything was repeated three times, come on let's crack on with this at a pace, I heard it the first time, you do have a knowing adult audience here.
Episode 2, was a total triumph, the pace picked up, just tons of detail, perspective and context. David's conclusions and analysis were brilliant in using the occupants of the house as a window into different occupations, countries, diseases and customs. This was history brought to life!
Episode 3, David covered 3 people connected to our house, he very cleverly chose people from the various families that would allow him to show facets of domestic or world history. Whilst totally delightful this technique runs into problems when the history becomes overwhelmingly rich and, we the viewer, are snatched away with just a fleeting glance. Mostly David gets the balance right but sometimes, like this episode, I felt cheated. My suggestion, if it really gets fascinating allow one person to take over a complete episode on indeed tack on another episode, also I would want to immerse David in the trenches, shove him into uniform and strap him in a straitjacket, it all may sound flippant but it all makes history alive. I really thought David quite brilliantly analysed the documentary evidence and not once conjectured beyond the detail. The same cannot be said of the other contributors "Rayon was the democratisation of fashion", well that's not true, or Theosophy was a place where "women had a voice as they had no voice elsewhere", again not true. Both these viewpoints are woke tropes and beyond what they thought at the time.
Episode 4, David surpassed himself here, waxing lyrical about the 130 past residents of the house, it was a very moving conclusion to a spectacular series of programmes.
Now looking back over the last few series it is self-evident David rivals Mary with his skills and abilities in bringing history to life. These shows represent the very best of BBC broadcasting and their ability to invest in a new idea, no other Chanel could achieve this level of excellence.
Roll on series 5.
Brilliant, A Riveting Watch & A Must See!
martimusross29 April 2019
A House Through Time
I must say I was critical of the first series of this show for several reasons, these were:-
1, on occasion, looking at history through a modern day prism, one example was particularly when talking about slavery.
2, pushing liberal authoritarianism when looking at how things were and how the historian thinks they should have been.
3, making a conjecture way beyond the historical facts before us.
With that said, series 2 is a total triumph and I will detail the main advances forward
1, the brilliant use of primary sources, we, the viewer are in on the action.
2, like a great detective we are led by these sources in a haphazard way this is thrilling.
3, the opinions and conclusions have been curbed to perfectly rational suggestions that add and interpret the often fragmentary historical documents.
4, the graphics were enhanced, amazing!
5, it was masterful in episode 3 to allow an emotional relative to take over the show, this was visceral and dry history was brought alive.
6, the casual manner of delivery with the viewer, we were on a journey together not board and chalk.
Now to be picky
1, the interior of the modern house was a bore, and yet this was the star of our show, this needed dressing.
2, inserting the MP was an obvious political point, an agenda that was misjudged here, this was self-indulgent.
3, it was clear the second half of episode 3, with the IRA became rushed, clearly the team was not expecting such rich history, but this didn't do it justice.
David Olusoga has managed to cut the historical cake in a novel and refreshing way, he took this simple idea and ran with it. This programme was without doubt brilliant, as indeed he is, and deeply memorable, it is not as he says an alternative history but a parallel history of everyday folk.
It is clear from the narrative the catch-net of a welfare state is the shining star of our civilisation, lacking still in most places today including America, who say you are "two paychecks from the street".
I must say I was critical of the first series of this show for several reasons, these were:-
1, on occasion, looking at history through a modern day prism, one example was particularly when talking about slavery.
2, pushing liberal authoritarianism when looking at how things were and how the historian thinks they should have been.
3, making a conjecture way beyond the historical facts before us.
With that said, series 2 is a total triumph and I will detail the main advances forward
1, the brilliant use of primary sources, we, the viewer are in on the action.
2, like a great detective we are led by these sources in a haphazard way this is thrilling.
3, the opinions and conclusions have been curbed to perfectly rational suggestions that add and interpret the often fragmentary historical documents.
4, the graphics were enhanced, amazing!
5, it was masterful in episode 3 to allow an emotional relative to take over the show, this was visceral and dry history was brought alive.
6, the casual manner of delivery with the viewer, we were on a journey together not board and chalk.
Now to be picky
1, the interior of the modern house was a bore, and yet this was the star of our show, this needed dressing.
2, inserting the MP was an obvious political point, an agenda that was misjudged here, this was self-indulgent.
3, it was clear the second half of episode 3, with the IRA became rushed, clearly the team was not expecting such rich history, but this didn't do it justice.
David Olusoga has managed to cut the historical cake in a novel and refreshing way, he took this simple idea and ran with it. This programme was without doubt brilliant, as indeed he is, and deeply memorable, it is not as he says an alternative history but a parallel history of everyday folk.
It is clear from the narrative the catch-net of a welfare state is the shining star of our civilisation, lacking still in most places today including America, who say you are "two paychecks from the street".
Season 3 Great House But Some Dodgy History!
martimusross4 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
A House in Time - Season 3
Where to start, I so want to praise this programme to the rafters but Season 3 was very much a mixed bag.
Series 3 David really made a brilliant choice of house built in 1718, more than 100 years before the slave trade was abolished in 1807 & 1834 and in Bristol a town that thrived, and was perhaps the nations epicentre, on this trade.
Episode 1 started brilliantly with an explanation of the house, who built it and how challenging it is to gather history before the census' start in 1841. 13 minutes in the music changes to menacing as 276 slaves are purchased by Captain Smith, well it was his job, later on David interprets the Bridstock Weaver accusation by Smith as both ugly and vindictive, but this is a leap to far, Smith was robbed, incarcerated for weeks, had his ship set on fire and cast adrift on the high seas in a small boat to die. A press ganged pirate is never-the-less a pirate and to presume that during his incarceration Smith became aware Weaver was a reluctant pirate is really quite ridiculous, David, quite obviously, seeks to condemn Captain Smith, as he is "tainted" by his association with the slave trade and does so by distorting the history.
As for Thomas and the Holbrooks, David creates a whole backstory and future for a runaway servant (not a slave despite the inference) The very fact that there is an advert and a substantial reward means Thomas is important, he is not portrayed as a runaway thief, but something valuable to be returned. Something must have instigated Thomas's departure, but this cannot be conjectured upon, but it must have been significant as the advert follows. To suggest Thomas was a fashion accessory and lived in the storage cellar is massaging history for an predetermined agenda to condemn the Holbrooks, particularly as 10 Guinea Street is a medium sized city townhouse and not a Palladian mansion. The interview with Dr David Dabydeen was an egregious self indulgence and the "Better a pirate than a slave", I nearly choked! Lastly can I remind everyone Mr Holbrook was a merchant not a slaver or plantation owner.
I cannot understand why David feels it necessary to condemn slavery at every turn, (we all know it's his specialist subject surprisingly) we all have embraced this condemnation long ago, it is 2020, and slavery was abolished over 200 years ago. Better to describe and educate us on this vile trade, who did the captain buy 276 people from, why Jamaica as a destination, the history of slavery in Africa etc etc. I cannot believe some matronising curator said to the camera "the 1700's were well before the welfare state......duh, I think we knew that, and then failed to describe the support systems in place at the time.
As I say a dreadful start.
Episode 2, apparently a private family will announced the disgrace of Anne Holbrook to the world and yet an announcement in the paper of an oath to get married is both discrete and private and worryingly quick, come on!
The reading of Anne Holbrook seems confused, my reading is in her 20's she had a sexual affair with a married man, James Poulson, Captain B, a possible relative of the James's wife denounced them both, James was sacked. Anne's father died and alludes to this in his will, 9 years later, James believes he is now free to marry Anne and does so. The family circumstances are so bad all in the one house together he subsequently walks out. Both James and Anne were both equally the instigators of their destinies.
Now from the Haberfields onwards this programme was back on track and I loved it. What went wrong you may ask with the starting episodes, I think David wanted to cement his expertise on all things slavery, but quite frankly it was misplaced here, he over-egged the history to suit his preordained agenda and has ended up with egg on his face.
I am sorry to be so critical but David Olusoga is really quite brilliant but any ego trip must be called out for what it is! I can't wait to see series 4, I suggest a house in Shoreditch to skip the slavery influence.
Where to start, I so want to praise this programme to the rafters but Season 3 was very much a mixed bag.
Series 3 David really made a brilliant choice of house built in 1718, more than 100 years before the slave trade was abolished in 1807 & 1834 and in Bristol a town that thrived, and was perhaps the nations epicentre, on this trade.
Episode 1 started brilliantly with an explanation of the house, who built it and how challenging it is to gather history before the census' start in 1841. 13 minutes in the music changes to menacing as 276 slaves are purchased by Captain Smith, well it was his job, later on David interprets the Bridstock Weaver accusation by Smith as both ugly and vindictive, but this is a leap to far, Smith was robbed, incarcerated for weeks, had his ship set on fire and cast adrift on the high seas in a small boat to die. A press ganged pirate is never-the-less a pirate and to presume that during his incarceration Smith became aware Weaver was a reluctant pirate is really quite ridiculous, David, quite obviously, seeks to condemn Captain Smith, as he is "tainted" by his association with the slave trade and does so by distorting the history.
As for Thomas and the Holbrooks, David creates a whole backstory and future for a runaway servant (not a slave despite the inference) The very fact that there is an advert and a substantial reward means Thomas is important, he is not portrayed as a runaway thief, but something valuable to be returned. Something must have instigated Thomas's departure, but this cannot be conjectured upon, but it must have been significant as the advert follows. To suggest Thomas was a fashion accessory and lived in the storage cellar is massaging history for an predetermined agenda to condemn the Holbrooks, particularly as 10 Guinea Street is a medium sized city townhouse and not a Palladian mansion. The interview with Dr David Dabydeen was an egregious self indulgence and the "Better a pirate than a slave", I nearly choked! Lastly can I remind everyone Mr Holbrook was a merchant not a slaver or plantation owner.
I cannot understand why David feels it necessary to condemn slavery at every turn, (we all know it's his specialist subject surprisingly) we all have embraced this condemnation long ago, it is 2020, and slavery was abolished over 200 years ago. Better to describe and educate us on this vile trade, who did the captain buy 276 people from, why Jamaica as a destination, the history of slavery in Africa etc etc. I cannot believe some matronising curator said to the camera "the 1700's were well before the welfare state......duh, I think we knew that, and then failed to describe the support systems in place at the time.
As I say a dreadful start.
Episode 2, apparently a private family will announced the disgrace of Anne Holbrook to the world and yet an announcement in the paper of an oath to get married is both discrete and private and worryingly quick, come on!
The reading of Anne Holbrook seems confused, my reading is in her 20's she had a sexual affair with a married man, James Poulson, Captain B, a possible relative of the James's wife denounced them both, James was sacked. Anne's father died and alludes to this in his will, 9 years later, James believes he is now free to marry Anne and does so. The family circumstances are so bad all in the one house together he subsequently walks out. Both James and Anne were both equally the instigators of their destinies.
Now from the Haberfields onwards this programme was back on track and I loved it. What went wrong you may ask with the starting episodes, I think David wanted to cement his expertise on all things slavery, but quite frankly it was misplaced here, he over-egged the history to suit his preordained agenda and has ended up with egg on his face.
I am sorry to be so critical but David Olusoga is really quite brilliant but any ego trip must be called out for what it is! I can't wait to see series 4, I suggest a house in Shoreditch to skip the slavery influence.
OK I have seen two full seasons and title is a misnomer!
cdeanroane1 October 2021
This show is not about house and how it was built and changes made to it though time. This show seems to try find a house that have some owners with scandals or whose line of work while perfectly honest and acceptable at the time, but would be a career considered unacceptable today. Or who while inventing something that was ground breaking for its' time but proved to hidden dangers later in time. All of this present with the host/presenters prejudices stamped over every episode! He more of a social historian nat a historian of architecture !
Lots of potential wasted turned into a historical version of a modern bad reality TV show.
cdeanroane18 September 2021
When I first came across this I thought it would be like a show I loved from a few years back No. 57 The Story of a House. While this came across as such and I have only been able to see Season 3 as I could not find links for season 1 & 2. This was somewhat trying at times as the presenter tried to convey times past but viewed with the biases of present day that presenter has. I have to say some of his implied speculation and innuendo was very off putting to me. Then one in episode he stated that TB, measles, whooping cough were diseases of the poor classes was horribly inaccurate. These were common diseases of a time before the second World War and vaccination that plagued both the houses of rich as well as poor families. Perhaps he should spend more time on accurate research and not just talking off the top of his poorly educated and very biased head! There was just enough of interest in season 3 for me to rate this at 2 stars, but just barely!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
