Texas Ranch House (2006– ) User Reviews

Shows are not historically inaccurate

[bookreader83 · 7/10 · 5 May 2006]

PBS's reality TV consists of bringing a select group of people (usually at least one or two families and several strangers) back into the past to re-live the experience of living within various historical time periods.

Texas Ranch House is the newest chapter in that series. One must keep in mind when watching these that although the participants are educated on what their roles will be, their 21st century mind-set is still affecting their ability to fully adapt to the role.

Texas Ranch House is entertaining because it reveals the hardships and day-to-day experiences of the people as they might have lived. We get to see the families adjust to their new living situations (or not) and how they cope with doing stuff as growing a garden, gathering up cattle, and living without 21st century technology.

I have become an avid fans of PBS's reality shows, but I have noticed one thing that viewers do complain about which is not inaccurate. So I hope to set it straight here.

That said, these shows are not inaccurate in their portrayals of feminism. (That said, I would not call the whiny Cooke women feminists). Feminism is not a post-1950s concept. Post Civil War (when Texas Ranch House takes place), feminists were speaking out for the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to divorce their husbands without losing custody of their child, the right to marry and keep one's last name.

It is a shame the previous viewer claims to be a feminist and history buff but doesn't know his feminist history. The "First Wave" is historically dated to 1848 when the Senaca Falls Convention took place. There, Lucy Stone and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, among others, produced the "Declaration of Sentiments." Post-Civil War, feminists broke into 2 camps--one group headed by Stanton and her comrade-in-arms, Susan B. Anthony, the other by Lucy Stone. Each group was preoccupied with getting the right to vote by but using different tactics. At the turn of the century, the two camps merged into NAWSA, of which Carrie Catt became President of. It was under Carrie Catt's second term that women got the right to vote.

One can argue all day about what constitutes feminism and whether the women portrayed in each of PBS's reality TV shows represent feminism, but people, please be aware of your feminist history before calling it 'historically inaccurate' to see it in whatever time period that the PBS show is currently set in.

Following "The Book"

[territerrier · 4 May 2006]

Maybe I am completely missing the point of these PBS 'Reality' shows, but aren't the participants supposed to WANT to reenact the period they are living in for a few months? My impression is that is why they are left 'The Book' on the ways that things were done in that time period - to be sure that they are following the protocol of the times.

The Cookes seem to want to 'play' in the past with actions and ideas of the present. This makes for a poorly acted day-time drama and NOT an interesting reality period piece. What a waste of an opportunity both for PBS to give us some good historical entertainment as well as for those families who would have actually stuck to the script.

As far as the Cookes making their livestock quota and being judged by the experts as successful, I can't believe they are so blind to the fact that the cowboys they dismisses as ingrates are the ONLY ones who can assure their success. I believe our narrator made mention of something along the lines of - back then, the cowboys would have all left to find work elsewhere with the treatment they received, and the Cookes would have found themselves high and dry. Now THAT would be entertainment AND justice!

A fascinating trip into the old west.

[Ellie-23 · 8/10 · 10 May 2006]

I have seen all the PBS mini series so far set in the past. Each time there are great things about the programs and not so great things.

I found the Cooke family to be out of touch with the period they were pretending to live in. I have lived on a farm in the mid-west and I couldn't believe the negligence with food and flies. I also found it interesting that once again the women who agreed to try out this adventure seemed to think that they had to defend their 21st century values, this caused unending difficulty for the ranch as a whole. I nearly fell off the couch when Mr. Cooke told the Comanche leader that he did not deal with terrorist. He didn't seem to realize that he was living in an area and time where he and his family were invaders and were lucky to escape alive. He was also more concerned with money than actually surviving. Ranching back then would have been more a survive and corner some extra to pay the taxes. At the end of the program he had irritated the ranch hands so much that they quit, the food in the garden had not been stored for winter, and the Cooke women were the laziest I have ever seen. When the Cooke family complained about the evaluations of the experts they were ignoring their failings and whining like children.

If it hadn't been for the horses, Maura, the Ranch hands, the Comanche, and the goofy long horns the series would have been a total loss. Still, it was interesting to see how things worked out.

Lady Macbeth at the O.K. Corral

[onepotato2 · 2/10 · 4 May 2006]

I guess I'm nerdy but I'll watch any of these shows. I'm also as feminist as anyone, moreso than some women, but no matter what the show's are titled, why do they all devolve into "Anti-historical feminist house?" Whether it's Mrs. Voorhees on Colonial House, or the whiny "I'm as good as any boy" Maura, it's the same old song.

Mrs Cooke is the major aggravation here; so stubborn that she can't understand that she's failing entirely to entertain viewers, inform them or provide anything to admire. She has one (modern) idea of how her intelligence should be channeled and accommodated and it's not happening for her. Without a Plan B, she bangs her head against the wall again and again; "Why am I not being included... Why was I not involved?" Because you're the biggest drag since RuPaul? Because you have major control issues in any century? What junky brand of feminism is it that only consists of post-neglect nagging? Supply a scenario and Mrs. Cooke will only be aware of what her personal needs are and her preconceived notions of how respect is properly performed, w/o concern for what effects she's actually having. Having done nothing, she nonetheless has insinuated herself into the center of all interactions, but it's not in some shrewd way you could admire. As a negative force she's easily reached the magnitude of impact she dreams of having via her own more ego-pleasing criteria. Mrs Cooke complements a weak mind with an intrusive presence and rapidly turns this into the least enjoyable of the 5 series I've seen.

My favorite moment so far was the Cooke womens proud, goofy (history-repairing) decision to set up the best table finery for the Comanches (!) who came over to tell them they'd kidnapped a man, stole two horses and made them accept a swindle. I laughed my butt off at the lopsided values that forced etiquette, of all things, into the foreground, only to be slapped down by the crude directness of the old west.

The next lamest moment concerns the time-travel of modern democratic ideals to the frontier: Maura whined and sulked until she got some horse training*, then concluded in last night's episode; "I don't even want to do it anymore. It's become a hassle..." or something. I just rolled my eyes thinking 'only the lazy and undeserving toss away a concession after nagging their peers into accommodating them.' That sends a terrific message. It's followed by a conflict with Robby telling her he doesn't appreciate her disrespect, and Maura interrupting to say she felt disrespected too. Try that next time your boss is giving you some negative feedback. It's not an encounter group.

Even leaving Mrs. Cooke aside, I can't fathom how a participant might ever reach the usual humbling conclusion, "Life is easier in the modern world," if he or she refuses to be humbled, or move outside their comfort zone. When your motivation is "I'm going to force everyone to meet me where I am," there's very little for a new-rancher to learn and just as little for a viewer to enjoy. There seems to be no reason to go on the show.

I love the idea of these shows. I hate the stupid gender-bickering they've turned into. The casting people need to better inform these women that it will be historically accurate, so the shows can become something other than women laying waste to the show's concept. Tiresome.

(* also not entertaining)

Would you like more whine with that cheese?

[penandswrd · 3/10 · 11 May 2006]

Texas RANCH HOUSE (TRH) is the latest installment in a string of similar reality shows. As a history buff, I've seen them all and like the idea of seeing real, live people coping with situations and scenarios from other centuries. I often wonder what I would do in such circumstances. In the case of TRH, I'd run. Away. Fast.

PBS needs to decide what it wants these shows to be. Are they truly about 21st century people in X century situations, or are they assigning X century roles/tasks to 21st century people who are expected to "play" those roles and perform those tasks in the X century manner? As PBS presents the finished product, they don't seem to be able to make up their minds. TRH shows this fault with abundant clarity.

If there is any psychological screening for these shows, PBS needs to rethink the methodology used. Participant-induced drama with fragile personalities who shouldn't have made the cut for the show does not necessarily make the best reality television, especially when the "reality" is also supposed to be educational. I would expect this from Jerry Springer or Oprah. I don't expect it from PBS.

The only real educational bits of this programme were those artificially forced in along the way by the producers. If the PBS mission for this show was "Let's get as much whining, complaining, backbiting, and sniping on the air as possible", then Mission Accomplished. Otherwise, no.

The show does have heroes and villains, sometimes the same people, and there are some interesting moments. But much of the programme is dominated by whining and complaining.

The last hour (episode) of the programme has some genuine entertainment value, and I'm probably not the only one who said "Oh yeah!" out loud when the cowboys do their thing, but that means sitting through seven hours of tedium previously to get to it.

In the end, as regards the Texas ranch house experience, one is better off reading a real book with some real history to it.

Texas ranch house 2006

[carla45 · 1/10 · 10 November 2007]

I must say that I love the idea of these shows. I just wish that they would find people more suited to living in the 1800. The Cooke family women like so many others can not seem to figure out that in those times, women really had no say so. It was man's work and women took care of the men. Mrs. Cooke with her head in the clouds and her mouth in the on position, just didn't get it. Mr. Cooke, should have grown bigger ball's. The Cooke family saw themselves as successful, they lived in a dream world through the hole show. The maid should have been put in her place. She seem to think she had a right to prove herself and that was not the intention of this show. I hope the next time PBS does another one of these shows. They pick better people. I must say this family was the worst. As for the ranch hands, I would hire them anytime if I had a ranch.

Who do those women think they are????

[Cali-lily · 5 May 2006]

Going into any of these historically based reality shows these people need to be told: YOU WILL BEHAVE AS IF IT WERE REALLY THAT TIME PERIOD. Not how you would react if you were beamed into that time period with your 21st Century attitude. No pioneer woman would have been as intrusive as Mrs. Cooke and her entourage were. They should not step up when strangers come, they should stay back for their own safety (remember the horse that ran off with the manure wagon?). None of those females had a clue how to act around real men. Why would they, they were used to that wimpy little man they called Mr. Cooke. And if I have to watch one more spoiled brat run around in her undergarments I will throw something at the TV.

The cowboys were a little off (sophomoric???) in their behavior to the women. But remember that Mr. Cooke initially expressed that he wanted them to stay away from his women. The cowboys were NOT to become friendly with the females, but then the women/girls were whining about how they wanted to be friends with them and how they turned on them by quitting in the end. EXCUSE ME...but, Mr. Cooke sold Jared that horse and when he was let loose by the Indians Mr. Cooke never said he was repossessing the horse. It was a MAN PRIDE thing at that point and we all applauded when they rode off together.

When the evaluation came and they all came off exactly as we thought they would that was the greatest satisfaction PBS could've given us. The committee validated every thought the viewers were expressing at home...so the question is: WHO THE HECK HIRED THE COOKES? AND WHY???

Definitely the most frustrating of all the House series

[Violet121179 · 4/10 · 16 January 2008]

If only I could give this show a split rating! The voting doesn't give that option, so I'll do it here.

I'd give a score of ten for:

-The clothing. I am a clothing researcher and I loved, absolutely loved the array of cotton print dresses, the accurate housedress (that's the dress with the purple paisley stripe print, it should have been worn with the waist tie tied in front to gather the flat front and wrap the full back skirt around), and the cowboys' dirty, dirty clothing.

-The scenery. Gorgeous, majestic, beautiful.

-The Comanche chief. What an awesome guy! The Comanches' behavior was historically inaccurate, but honestly, they simply couldn't have been accurate without "killing" at least a few of the ranch hands.

-The ranch hands. They worked their butts off, were likable and funny, and . . . I really liked them. One of the best things on these shows is seeing the people who "become" their personas- the grandmother on 1940s House, the "sexy milkmaid" from Colonial House. Like them, the cowboys become dedicated to their work, and also to each other. They learned to work as a team, and even Shaun, the youngest, buckled down and took on a job he didn't really want and should no longer have been doing by the time of the cattle drive.

And a score of zero for: -Maura, the maid of all work. She struck a chord with me because I spent six years in academia- learned tons and has already helped me in my career, and I also ran into several examples of people so interested in proving something that they couldn't have cared less about honest scholarship.

In addition, I love learning about women's work. I cook, sew (by hand and machine), and spin and weave- all women's work that gave them economic power, sometimes enough to support an entire family. Because they fed, clothed, and cared for their households, the ranch house could not have existed without women.

A smart woman could turn this into a position of power. Women tended the garden and preserved food- this meant that they controlled the food and could make money by selling surplus. Women sewed- this meant that anyone who needed clothing repaired came to them, and they could make money by sewing for others. Women cared for the sick and injured- this meant that anyone who was nursed back to health owed his nurse a debt of gratitude.

What this very long lecture comes down to is that Maura's actions seemed like an insult to almost every woman in the Old West. She had the chance to BE one of those women and to understand reality of gender and power in that situation, and instead she decided to do her own thing rather than learn from her role as maid. I couldn't help thinking that she's going to do great in academia. Unfortunately I didn't mean it as a compliment.

-Talking about women brings us to . . . Mrs. Cooke! She spent her time sewing quilts and making corncob dolls as flies overran her kitchen and the produce went bad in the garden. Unfortunately, fine sewing and patchwork and painting were what women did to relax after their massive amount of chores were done. Holding a big party the night before the ranch hands had to get up early for the cattle drive, putting out the good china for *Comanches* . . .

If she were only clueless, Mrs. Cooke would be amusing and maybe even likable. Unfortunately, she's evil. Numerous times we see her putting down the ranch hands. She clearly looked down on them as lesser forms of life rather than understanding that they were a vital part of the ranch. She said multiple times that she was afraid that they would attack her daughters- in the twenty-first century with a camera crew around every corner! That was both manipulative and incredibly insulting. Any time she talked about feminism was ridiculous. Being a strong woman does not mean hiding behind your husband while you manipulate him into doing your dirty work and then convince him that the bad results are because the other person doesn't "respect" him. Ugh! I'll stop there to spare my blood pressure. When I read the discussion of this show on the Television Without Pity forums, it came out that apparently there was worse footage of Mrs. Cooke left on the cutting room floor. I can't imagine how! -Finally, Mr. Cooke. He also makes me livid because he is every incompetent administrator who has ever made your life miserable. His chocolate coating of meaningless manager-speak hides a creamy nougat filling of total incompetence. The man is completely under his wife's control to the point that, if their sexes were reversed, I might use the word "abusive." His continual flip-flopping and lack of respect for the ranch hands was pathetic to watch. And his treatment of Jared at the end of the series was downright criminal (literally). The only thing he accomplished was to confirm my theory that anyone who uses the phrase "a sense of urgency" should be set on fire.

I'd like to hope that PBS will use better casting in any more shows of this kind that they do. But "Texas Ranch House" provoked a ton of comments, most of them critical, and that probably just shows the network executives that people are watching. (I hope they remember that angry viewers don't donate.) Until the shows become unbearable, I'll be a sucker for them. And I'm very glad I watched this series, simply because of the ranch hands. They were the ones who made me understand and love a part of history that I'd never been interested in before. Well done, gentlemen- and if you're ever in the Hudson Valley, get in touch and I'll make you a good, historically-accurate dinner (with no beans, I promise).