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

[empty-mirrors.livejournal.com]

This is why I don't watch documentaries on the TV any longer, unless they're for the Open University and thus may actually have some content.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Oh I know, I usually know better too, but I wanted this one to be good!

[miwahni.livejournal.com]

Sounds more like a soap opera than a serious documentary. What a shame. The whys and wherefores of the discovery and confirmation would have been fascinating. The emotions? Not so much.

[ailcia.livejournal.com]

Like you, I have little emotional attachment to the War of the Roses - having never done it at school or been particularly fond of pre-Tudor history that isn't about Scottish clans - and I have yet to watch the documentary, but here's my tuppence, anyway! The advert for the doc had a lot of that woman crying and looked very much like style over substance, and I can tell you that a lot of history-types online, while not wishing to take away from the extraordinary achievement, are exceedingly cross and embarrassed by the way this media show has been conducted, and how it portrays the disciplines of archaeology and history. For what it's worth, you're not the only one to view it as a total 'dumbing down'... I shall have to watch it before I can say!

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

That's exactly what it felt like... and a Hugh Grant type bumbling around going gosh, and are you alright? and Now is the winter... *headdesk*

[gilda-elise.livejournal.com]

I've heard a few comments to this effect, that, once again, the story was being slanted toward the Shakespearean fable. For one, scoliosis does not result in a hunched back. One shoulder would have appeared higher than the other and his active life style most likely helped, too, so it wasn't the deformity it appears they're still trying to foist on him. For the rest, the dozens of fine books about him do a much better job than Wikipedia. I can certainly give you some recommendations if you wish. :-)

I guess my only consolation is that this seems to be the future of documentaries, more "docu-drama" than actual history, and not that they're picking on Richard specifically.

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

I'm another one who avoids a lot of documentaries - the dumbing down drives me mad, as does the agenda(?) of making the presenters rather than the subject look good. Historical and medical topics seem to suffer more than most so I suppose this one, with DNA, scoliosis and a Plantaganet king was always going to be a mess.

I've always been fascinated by Richard, and have both studied him and read around the subject. I was quite 'thrilled' at the discovery of the skeleton, but I had doubts about the documentary and didn't watch it. The various errors in different media reports were bad enough.

[kiwisue.livejournal.com]

My Facebook feed was full of the event (of course, since it's made up of all the reenactors I know) & my one comment was "I think I need a good anatomists report on the spinal curvature before I stop thinking that layout's something of an exaggeration." I'm not particularly Ricardian, either.

As Gilda says, scoliosis /= hunchback. Generally a hunchback is due to kyphosis. Strike one!

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've seen some wailing and gnashing of teeth from the professionals (the other kind *g*) as well... which is something of a relief, I guess!

[moonlightmead.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I videoed this, and you have just saved me an hour and a half.

It's not just you. I did one of the OU science-in-archaeology courses a while ago, and another about cities and technology, and I was stunned and fascinated at the scientific content. I still have all the textbooks. It was really hard work, but for a short time I felt I knew the differences between the different scientific techniques, and which was appropriate when, and what the range of accuracy was. I thought that the documentary was going to be looking at this end of things.

I'm impressed at the dedication of the Ricardians who found the money to fund the dig, and at the narrowing down of the site and all that, and I'm delighted it's such a happy ending from their point of view, but I wanted to go "ooh" at X-ray results and see people comparing them with modern skeletons and looking at what that spine twisting may have meant, and have someone explain to me how we know he ate a lot of seafood (or did I dream that comment? I only heard it once) and how that differentiates him - or doesn't - from what we know of the population of the time. So if that's not the main thrust, I shall go and see what else is on the machine to watch tonight.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Oh no, I didn't think the story was slanted towards Shakespeare's play at all - very much the opposite, throughout!

I'm not sure about foisting a deformity on him, but I was fascinated with the degree of deformity in the spine of the skeleton. Google imaging scoliosis certainly suggests that there may have been a visible difference in his stance, which could lead to name-calling - as they pointed out in the programme, if you want to malign someone, its more effective to take a fault and exaggerate it than to make one up entirely. And we don't know that what they called a hunchback 500 years ago is the same shape we'd call a hunchback, so I think that's all fairly open to interpretation... 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...

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*

This definitely isn't the first documentary that's dramatised the process more than the information - actually the same kind of dramatisation can be seen over here on gameshows now too, where the pause between finding out if your answer was right or wrong, winning or losing, is ridiculously drawn out for the added "excitement" of the moment - it's one of the most disappointing, though...

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

It's awful, isn't it, that things like this are stopping us watching documentaries...

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I suppose the hunchback idea must depend alot on interpretation though - not even just of whether that particular deformity would be visible physically or not, but of what you're calling "hunchback". I think it's pretty dangerous to say "scoliosis /= hunchback" too, to be honest. It's hard to believe there wasn't some obvious extra-skeletal physical manifestation, and just because 500 years later we wouldn't call it a "hunchback" doesn't mean that people didn't back then. What do we even mean by "hunchback", come to that? What kind of stereotype do we have in mind when we're saying "no, it couldn't be that"?

But as you say - what would be far more helpful is a proper medical report, and knowledge-driven suggestions about it all. Not just weepiness at the thought that you might have got it wrong!

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

I've been enjoying the series about the old kingdoms of South America - possibly because although I'd done work on the Incas (for a teaching module published pre-national curriculum) this series contains a lot of new research which is fascinating. But I have no idea how it is seen by experts in the field.

After a number of poor Horizon presentations I just about stopped watching anything with a medical slant. I suppose they find difficulty in making information accessible to all but I'd almost rather they didn't try.

I've read a couple of history books about the plague in the last few years that were similarly irritating - couldn't make their minds up who their audience was, I suspect.

We watched Brian Cox's lecture the other night and frankly, he lost me, but at least it wasn't badly dumbed down (just turned into a 'show'!) and I grasped some of it.

I've also been watching Attenborough's new Africa series and at least it's 'pretty' though I think I actually got more from Stephen Tompkinson's balloon trip.

[snailbones.livejournal.com]

Should I just shut up and wait for Strictly Archaeologists on Ice in all their spangled glory?

*falls over laughing* And this is why I love you so much.

[msmoat.livejournal.com]

Huh. Well, that's disappointing! I was hoping the documentary might make it over here, but now it makes no difference. Not all documentaries are like that (Ken Burns makes brilliant documentaries of American historical events, for instance), but a distressing number are. I think the assumption is that "people" don't like/are bored with history. Which always astonishes me. I remember going on a bus tour of NYC with my brother years and years ago, and the tour guide kept making light of the "boring history stuff" that he was imparting. But, of course, that was by far the best part of the tour. Arrgh. I would so much have enjoyed the documentary as you described it. Ah, well.

[constant-muse.livejournal.com]

Well said, that woman. I wasted an hour and a half of my life! Then sent a succinct negative comment direct to C4.
Is it that I seldom watch TV or was this a particularly unfortunate example of severe dumbing down?
I was perhaps unfair in referring to Philippa Langley as conveniently attractive, as I read later that she went to the production company with the idea, so her prominent role was her idea not theirs.
Wasn't sure at all what the point of Simon Farnaby was.I hoped it was the Tony Robinson role from Time Team, but not quite.
I could go on libellously all day, but you've put it much more intelligently.
Like you I didn't study this era at school, or even university concerning Britain. But I've visited Bosworth battlefield, I also have family in Leicester and I'm sure we used that carpark once!

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

There's alot to be interested in, and alot to be impressed by in the work, but there was far too much admiration and far too little substance about what they did, if you ask me...

You didn't dream the seafood comment though - they pointed to a high level of marine food in his diet and suggested that this pointed to a wealthier individual rather than someone with a more "ordinary" diet, in somewhere inland like York. It's only briefly mentioned though, and it seems to be being misinterpreted in reports already as "high protein" - not the same thing at all, there were specific levels of marine fish - they affected the c14 dates, and when taken into account pushed the dates forward enough that it fell into the required time period...

ETA - actually I take it back about the "high protein", I don't remember that from the show, but it is up at the Leics Uni website, as results from their analysis, so... *g*

[constant-muse.livejournal.com]

ps I was particularly disappointed by lack of explanation of the genealogical research, and of the 'DNA matching'.
Left wondering wherr Philippa Langley stands in the Richard III Society. why did she appear as the only representative, when there must be knowledgeable and articulate members, also a president, secretary or whatever, who might have spoken on particular aspects of this project?

[heliophile-oxon.livejournal.com]

Should I just shut up and wait for Strictly Archaeologists on Ice in all their spangled glory?

Says it all, really :-/ I'm afraid you're absolutely right!

I haven't taken any real interest in the digging-up-RIII saga, tbh, and you've 100000000000% (well, you know what I mean! *g* Never mind the mathematical impossibility!) confirmed that I would have hated this bit of showbiz too. It makes me miserable when fascinating information is turned into pap like this. Not everything has to be sensationalised, dammit; if the programme is worth making, why gut it for the sake of (presumably what they thought would be) a slightly higher audience rating? They must have put a lot of people off by making it all fluff and no substance, without necessarily attracting all that many people (it's still "history", after all)

Watched the two episodes of Brian Cox's Wonders of Life, though, and absolutely loved it! *g* I think he's improving as a presenter, and the physicist's-take-on-biology was brilliant I thought. I'd been wondering what could possibly be said that hadn't already been said by Attenborough, and he pulled it off extremely well by concentrating a bit more on the physics involved in energy capture in ep one, and animal senses in ep 2.

[ailcia.livejournal.com]

I'd been wondering what could possibly be said that hadn't already been said by Attenborough

Me, too! I've not been watching, sort of for precisely that reason, and only watched ep 2 the other day (drawn to it more for the shallow purpose of perving on my favourite professor than for scientific reasons, I must admit) and was surprised and overjoyed by how brilliant it was! The combo of physics and biology is novel and much-needed, and I liked all the swoopy Sherlock-esque graphics!

Came for the face, stayed for the science. :P

[inamac.livejournal.com]

Ms Langley is the secretary of the Scottish branch of the RIII society, but seems to have been the leading person in getting the funding for the dig, describes herself as a scriptwriter and was credited as 'producer' of the documentary - which explains much.

I have a theory that the both Leicester U and the rest of the RIII Soc are busily distancing themselves from her.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

*g*

Yeah, but you know one day they will, the way this world's going...

[inamac.livejournal.com]

I gave up at about the half-way mark - and am grateful that I did.

I had great hopes after the press ocnference, which was ocnducted in a professional way, and Leicester University has a lot of detail on the actual archaeology on their site (none of which apeared in the documentary).

I have the impression that when it became clear that this was going to be the Phillippa Whosis Show a lot of people started distancing themselves from the documentary. It was noticeable that the press conference was streamed by the BBC, not Channel 4, and that no one involved in the long running Time Team production crew seemed to have been included - although I'm sure that I saw a glimpse of Phil Harding at the dig site - and there were a number of people in armour about who may have been re-enactors (a Time Team staple) who never appeared in the programme.

There is probably a very good docu-drama that could be made about the making of this fiasco.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Well, it wasn't un-interesting - I mean I didn't turn off or anything (though I must admit that was more in hope than anything else... and yeah, there are still some good documentaries out there, quite right. They don't look like this one, though. *g*

I'm not sure, over here, if it's the "people don't like history" thing, because over the past years I think they've proved beyond belief that people adore archaeology, and the National Trust and English Heritage have huge memberships, and museums always seem busy (and not just with foreign tourists). I wonder if they're trying to pander to the highly-(over)rated eejit-programmes such as Strictly Ballroom and Dancing on Ice and other talent shows, thinking that if they don't sensationalise things in the same way, there's no way they'll be able to compete on viewing figures. In fact I've just checked viewing figures - apparently over 4 million for Richard, compared to 6 million for a comedy series (that I couldn't keep watching after the glimpse I had, but maybe it got better - Mrs Brown's Boys) and 2.3 million for a drama series), but I wonder how many of them would have watched it expecting something better/different...