So - Richard!

[byslantedlight]

Oddly enough, the whole Richard III/Princes in the Tower thing was something I missed out on at school (or perhaps not oddly, we looked at gold rushes and things like that instead... *g*), so although I think the archaeology and science and discovery and all of Richard III are very cool, it's not got quite the same emotional attachment for me as it seems to have for a lot of people. The University of Leicester and all have done a great job of hyping it all up though, to the point that I stayed up to watch the documentary about it last night...

...and nearly cried. Not about Richard (finding his skeleton doesn't change what that body may have done whilst it was alive, though I'm more interested in finding out about it!), but about the state of so-called historical documentaries on our telly! With every wonderful thing that they've done with science in archaeology, all the amazing advances that have been made and their application to the remains found in the carpark... we got that.

What I'd been looking forward to:
- seeing how they'd matched the mtDNA to the two alleged descendants
- seeing what they'd worked out about the level of his scoliosis, considering the dramatic curvature of the vertebra
- seeing how they created his facial reconstruction, not (at a very shallow level) a reconstruction
- hearing more about the story of Richard, and why this was all such a big deal.

What we got instead:
- told they'd matched the DNA
- told "this is what he looked like"
- told "some people thought he was evil but some people don't believe that"
- far too much Shakespeare in the background, when they were purporting to be overturning the image
- far too much wibbly guff about the RIIIsoc woman's "journey". I was with Appleby, the osteologist, who a) refused to carry the remains around draped in a flag until they'd been properly verified (proud of her, I was, for that refusal!); and b) looked rather embarrassed and trying not to laugh out loud when the RIIIsoc woman had to leave the room for a wee cry after being told that the skeleton did indeed have scoliosis which may have resulted in a hunched back (and possible problems finding armour to fit...) Yes this might be important to you personally, and something you spend alot of emotional energy on, but I'm not interested in spending 90 minutes of my life finding out about you, nice as you might be, I want to know about what was found! Tell me that, not how much you want to have a cry!
- far too much emphasis on how spooky it was that there'd been an "R" on the carpark in the exact spot, and the arch's came down on the remains straight away, and oooh didn't it rain hard just as they'd found them? (It's archaeology! It's sod's law that it always starts to rain as soon as you find something that really shouldn't get wet! And it's England!)

I'm all about keeping the human factor in archaeology, and that's something I think the UK does well, but I want the human factor about what's been found (and why we can believe it), not about the people doing the finding... I don't want dull, dry telly either, but by all accounts this is Richard III, who had quite the life and death - there was battle and intrigue and murder, and the death of his own young son, and... and... and... This is where Henry VII (to be) triumphed, and the country was hugely changed by Tudor rule (would we have had the Church of England without it...?) And where was I left to find most of that information? Wiki-sodding-pedia! If I hadn't been reading about it all afternoon first, I'd've come away absolutely no wiser, having seen the documentary.

Is it just me? Am I just very grumpy because when we're making brilliant advances, what I'm seeing is the dumbing down of any vaguely educational historical content on telly at all? Should I just shut up and wait for Strictly Archaeologists on Ice in all their spangled glory? (Or the return, perhaps, of Bonekickers... *shudders*)

Comments

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

You might be able to tell I don't watch telly much, cos I had no clue who Simon Farnaby was (though he does have a wee look of CGND about him) - he didn't seem to be much of a Tony Robinson, though, more emotional support for RIIIsoc woman (okay, I was being all tactful and not slagging her off by name, but... yeah, Langley. *g*) Farnaby seems an odd choice though, as a comedian... maybe cos of Horrible Histories (which I gather he was in?)

And a big fat ahhhh to inamac below (above?!) who points out that Langley was not just the catalyst (fine, good for her) but also producer of the show (really? And you weren't even more ashamed to be seen sniffling around like that, then? I mean, one thing if someone else had forced you into it, but to think this is how I want millions of people to know me...)

I suppose we'll have to wait for the peer-reviewed papers to come out - presuming they will...

[solosundance.livejournal.com]

Hmmm I'm sure read Josephine Tey when I was younger but I can't remember a thing about it. And I'm sure I may have studied the period at some stage but I can't remember much about that either. So it's probably because of both those things that I keep feeling like I'm missing something in all this... I did record the C4 documentary but there's too many other things to do so I don't think I'll watch it - what I would have liked would have been almost too-difficult-to-understand sciencey stuff and it sounds like there wasn't any *sighs for difficult to understand sciencey stuff*

Strictly Archaeologists on Ice Hee!

[constant-muse.livejournal.com]

in the light of day I regretted my negative feedback to C4. If I wanted the detail I should read the excavation report. But really, is it too much to ask that in 90 minutes we could have a good summary of the excavation and the analyses? Hugh said I was right to complain, anyway. *g*E

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Ooh, no, I don't think you should regret it at all - I think people need to say it! There's a middle ground between the excavation reports (hmmn, wonder if there's even one of those yet?) and the wobbly-lipped breathless twaddle that made up most of King Under the Carpark...

Actually the Leics. uni site has some better stuff (and I see there's barely a mention of tears and spooky tempests (or the rainstorm, either... *g*)

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Aaaah, about Langley being the "producer" of the documentary - though I just find that even more frightening, cos really, that's how we're wanting to portray ourselves now? *sighs*

Actually the the Leics. uni webpages about it all are more the sort of thing I'd been looking for (not actually in an academic kind of way at all either, nicely accessible, imho) - and you could be right, cos they barely mention the Langley woman...

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I do keep forgetting what Channel 4 can be like (though it was hammered home at the end of the pap last night when the advert for the next exciting Channel 4 production was Big Fat Gypsy Valentines... I hate that kind of thing - from the title all the way down, and they really are down... Oh, I also noticed that the company that did The King in the Carpark was Endomol, also responsible for Big Brother... *sighs*

Mind you, I keep missing the good stuff too, cos I don't watch much telly... I would do more if I didn't have to lie on my bed like a teenager to do it, mind - it'd be quite nice to sit down in front of the box for 15 minutes, to see what was on, without feeling as if I'd packed it in for the night!

I wonder if they were thinking that it'd be up against something like Strictly, and therefore needed that same breath of desperate melodrama... or no, they were probably just being very Channel 4 about it...

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Came for the face, stayed for the science. :P</o? I wonder if they hoped it might work that way with Simon thingie, last night... and then decided to forget about the science... *g*

[heliophile-oxon.livejournal.com]

Big Fat Gypsy Valentines? Sounds lovely. Always something left at the bottom of the barrel for them to scrape ... let me see, fat-shaming, racism and sexism all in one red-ribboned package, is what that sounds like.

About the only thing we tend to watch in real time is the news; most things are either via catch-up or iPlayer or whatever, or that "rewind this programme" thing you can do now. So it saves missing a good programme, sometimes at least. But I see what you mean about not-ideal viewing conditions!

Channel 4 used to be all right, didn't it? About a million years ago? Or is that my memory playing tricks?

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I think it was the press conference that got me all complacent too, with glimpses of actual science and explanation and all - and as you say, the Uni of Leics site is nicely done too (I found it a minute ago, and think I linked you to it above, before I'd read this properly - sorry! *g*)

I wished I'd been able to watch the David Starkey thing afterwards, but I had to work instead (which is what I should have been doing throughout the programme, but I did keep watching in hope...) - actually I wonder if that's up on an iPlayer type thing somewhere...

[ariss-tenoh.livejournal.com]

It sounds like they cooked up a documentary fast enough to air it on the telly.

[gilda-elise.livejournal.com]

What I wanted to see though was what that skeleton would have looked like with flesh, how it compared with what we know of the disease today, etc etc... It looked dramatic, but how much would that necessarily have reflected in the man's physique? By all accounts (according to the programme) he was considered quite the warrior, so presumably it wasn't too debilitating...

The only account that's anywhere near contemporary comments on one shoulder being higher than the other, nothing about Richard being obviously deformed. And during his coronation, he would have been shirtless, so it isn't as if no one ever saw that part of his body.

I may well add a book or two to my reading list - sadly I wasn't anywhere near a library when I was typing this yesterday afternoon! Probably just as well I wasn't near a bookshop... *g*

There certainly are enough of them. For someone who only reigned for less than two years, he'd had a lot of press.

Oh, and you might try the Leicester University YouTube site. There's at least one really good video on how they sequenced the mDNA.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I have no idea who Josephine Tey is, but I shall try to remember to look her up! Actually, it reminds me that I no doubt read the odd historical novel set roughly in the period, but I don't remember the actual history of it either...

Definitely wasn't any difficult-to-understand-sciencey-stuff - but you can see what they say at the University of Leicester Richard III pages, that's much better, and includes the science-y stuff! They have vids up too, though I've not watched them yet...

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't know how long they'd been planning it - they certainly used film of the actual uncovering of the bones, and were interviewing the osteoarchaeologist as she went along, and of course it takes a long time to get alot of the analyses done, so they must have had some time... From what inamac says above, it may have been partly under control of the RIIIsoc woman, which might explain things (since she's clearly that type of woman... *g*)

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I thought Channel 4 was alright! At least, a million years ago when I was younger I did... or was it just... that I was younger?! Or.... maybe it was before they started making Big Brother, and the world was encourage to be even more spiteful to each other, and got just a little bit worse... *sighs*

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I've never got into South America prehistory, though I can see it's fascinating in theory... I should just try harder! *g*

I suspect alot of it does come down to producers/directors deciding who they think the audience is (or "should be") and then deciding for that audience what it is they're supposed to be watching... thank goodness there are still a few people who won't - or don't have to - do that! I missed Cox' lecture the other night - didn't even know he was doing it until I walked in on my landlady watching it, bleary-eyed... *g* See, that's why I'd like to have a chair to watch telly from - oh, and a couple of extra plugs, so I could leave it all plugged in and just turn the telly on without it being such a big palaver...

[solosundance.livejournal.com]

Josephine Tey wrote Detective novels in the 50s or 60s (*is vague*) - The Daughter of Time (about a detective and the princes in the Tower) was all the rage in my class when I was about 11...

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

Cox was fun, even though I didn't understand it all!

I have now watched the Richard III documentary - my f'list was full of it this morning so I thought I'd better have a look. I hated it - very little about Richard, and lots and lots about a very emotional campaigner. Apart from the facial resconstruction I didn't learn anything that wasn't in the news reports.

Sometimes I don't think producers/directors have any idea about their viewers!

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

I looked up The Daughter of Time in order to respond to someone else on my f'list and I see it has just been re-released for Kindle and in paperback (to coincide with the excavations?). I loved it when I was in my late teens, and it gave me a lifelong fascination with Richard. It's a modern detective who's laid up with an injury and looks into the historical mystery to keep himself occupied.

[loyseofverlaine.livejournal.com]

What a shame! I'm fascinated both by British history and the science of discovering things like this, and by the sound of it, they messed both up. Things really do get dumbed down these days - all those "reality" programs have lowered the bar so much. Richard's life - and the whole War of the Roses saga - is really interesting. They wouldn't need to gussy it up with modern emotionalism - just tell the story!

[siskiou.livejournal.com]

The discovery has hit the "news" channels here, and I just had the misfortune of watching a clip, mainly showing the well known painting of him and then the image of what they think he may have looked like according to the bone scans.
The newscaster, when asked which image she preferred had this to say (to the new image): "I just think he looks like a woman."
Such are the news...

[golden-bastet.livejournal.com]

I'm not hugely knowledgeable of British history, but yeah - I heard about the discovery a few months back and was interested in finding out about the forensic work and such that went into the identification. And I didn't see the docudramamentary, but - yeah, I would have been pretty disappointed, too.

And poor Sir Laurence O! No respect.
(Okay, I saw the movie in high school, but still.)

ETA - actually it was Henry V in high school. But he *did* do Richard III, LOL.

[foreverfoxcat.livejournal.com]

Very quick comment, because I have to go to work now and I can't believe I missed this discussion before.

I was also disappointed in the documentary. It was far too superficial, and even though I am perpetually baffled by the science I wanted to know a lot more how and have a lot more expert interpretation of what it all means.

I was also disappointed in the R3Soc lady and did give a small cheer when Bones Lady expressed her reservations about draping the remains in Richard's standard. They're human remains, they will be shown respect regardless of who they may or may not be. And I was annoyed when R3 lady was getting so upset about the fact that Richard had scoliosis. He was who he was - whatever we find out, it's fact. You can't just choose the bits that you like. And also, when this lady decided she was going to push for the search for Richard she should have mentally prepared herself for the fact that she might not like what she found - he could have been found complete with withered arm, hunchback and a signed confession in his pocket saying that he did murder the princes. It's about truth. And that's exciting.

On the other hand, she's not a scientiest, It's the scientists' job to be impartial, not hers. And without her drive, we wouldn't have had the dig in the first place, so perhaps I shouldn't judge too harshly.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Leicester Uni's Richard III website is nicely done, isn't it - I only saw it after I'd written my post, and it's much more what I'd hoped the documentary would be! Not watched the vids yet, but if I get a chance tonight... *g*

Perhaps if Richard was briefly shirtless during his coronation (that was traditional then, was it? how many people would have seen him close enough to tell, I wonder...) it would have been just enough to lend truth to what could later be exaggerated...

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I don't think producers/directors have any idea about their viewers!
Except out of curiosity I trawled around for reviews of it yesterday, and the vast majority (and their comments) talked about how much they'd enjoyed it... and that is almost the most frightening thing - the loudest people are the ones who want to extol this level of film-making, rather than encourage people to open their imagination and understanding further... Maybe because they can't be bothered to do it themselves...

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Ah, cool... sounds like the sort of thing I would have read too, but it doesn't sound familiar when I look it up...

*adds to list*

*g*