Face Reconstruction

I think I can see some resemblance between the reconstruction and the paintings. The nose and the strong chin. Of cause how much was the reconstructor (is that the right word?) been influenced by the paintings, however hard she may tried not to be.

The mouth is a much nicer, more generous that the mean, pinched one often seen in paintings. Wonder why!

It shows an handsome face but I suspect in real life his skin would not be so smooth, more weathered. That is not a criticism, I don't mind the more rugged look!

Luckily I'm getting my computer fixed tomorrow since I've lost the sound. Then I will have a good time listening to the different downloads.

I hope one of the Australian channels does buy the documentary or it comes out on DVD. Something to keep.

Blessings to all those wonderful people involved in this historical and wonderful event.

Helen

P.S. I even dreamed about Richard III last night. Except a part of the dreams was me getting angry at a stupid man on the television saying absurb things about Richard.

It was indeed a fine work, what they did with the reconstruction (the same friend who gave me the screencaps commented that the face was rounder than she expected - I do wonder if they had also Laurence Olivier somewhat in mind), although the more I look at it the more I find something possibly sly in his expression... I'll go back to my own way of imagining him, I think!

Cecilia




________________________________
Da: sweethelly2003 <sweethelly2003@...>
A:
Inviato: Martedì 5 Febbraio 2013 0:54
Oggetto: Face Reconstruction


 
I think I can see some resemblance between the reconstruction and the paintings. The nose and the strong chin. Of cause how much was the reconstructor (is that the right word?) been influenced by the paintings, however hard she may tried not to be.

The mouth is a much nicer, more generous that the mean, pinched one often seen in paintings. Wonder why!

It shows an handsome face but I suspect in real life his skin would not be so smooth, more weathered. That is not a criticism, I don't mind the more rugged look!

Luckily I'm getting my computer fixed tomorrow since I've lost the sound. Then I will have a good time listening to the different downloads.

I hope one of the Australian channels does buy the documentary or it comes out on DVD. Something to keep.

Blessings to all those wonderful people involved in this historical and wonderful event.

Helen

P.S. I even dreamed about Richard III last night. Except a part of the dreams was me getting angry at a stupid man on the television saying absurb things about Richard.

Hi, Cecilia and Everyone 



Now, now, Cecilia. What you've written shows that those so inclined will be able to find something negative even in the charming facial reconstruction. I can just imagine Michael Hicks saying, See he looks sly!



My understanding of facial reconstruction is that there are some variables possible in the reconstruction of the soft tissues. However, there is no doubt in my mind that there are the bony structures present in Richard's case to determine the major features of the face, as has been noted by JAH, the chin and the nose in particular. He doesn't look a bit like Laurence Olivier imho (whose model after all was the Big Bad Wolf and Broadway producer/director Jed Harris). I'm patting myself on the back, because I looked at the prominent jaw on the skull and said to myself, Myself, I said, I think he will most resemble the NPG portrait. And it's obvious that's the one they must have drawn most from  but that is no doubt that the NPG portrait also seems to bear the greatest resemblance to the skull, so I am sure that that is what determined that they would rely on it more than the other portraits, since none seem to be the life originals.



Much as I felt drawn to Richard as a historical character who had been unfairly judged, I must say that the identification of the skeleton and now this image, which really almost brings him back to life, takes the experience to a whole new level.



I hope this is not a flash in the pan that fades in a few months, but a phenomenon which will remain and enable even greater efforts to counter the Tudorists. (BTW, it really shouldn't take much effort to point out, curvature of the spine to the contrary, Richard would not have been a hunchback; he would not have had a hump. The condition would basically make his trunk shorter than it would have been had he had a normal spine. The hunchback is still a twisted image, along with the deformed left arm, of the propagandists.)



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Cecilia Latella
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Face Reconstruction





It was indeed a fine work, what they did with the reconstruction (the same friend who gave me the screencaps commented that the face was rounder than she expected - I do wonder if they had also Laurence Olivier somewhat in mind), although the more I look at it the more I find something possibly sly in his expression... I'll go back to my own way of imagining him, I think!

Cecilia

________________________________
Da: sweethelly2003 sweethelly2003@... <mailto:sweethelly2003%40yahoo.com.au> >
A: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Inviato: Martedì 5 Febbraio 2013 0:54
Oggetto: Face Reconstruction



I think I can see some resemblance between the reconstruction and the paintings. The nose and the strong chin. Of cause how much was the reconstructor (is that the right word?) been influenced by the paintings, however hard she may tried not to be.

The mouth is a much nicer, more generous that the mean, pinched one often seen in paintings. Wonder why!

It shows an handsome face but I suspect in real life his skin would not be so smooth, more weathered. That is not a criticism, I don't mind the more rugged look!

Luckily I'm getting my computer fixed tomorrow since I've lost the sound. Then I will have a good time listening to the different downloads.

I hope one of the Australian channels does buy the documentary or it comes out on DVD. Something to keep.

Blessings to all those wonderful people involved in this historical and wonderful event.

Helen

P.S. I even dreamed about Richard III last night. Except a part of the dreams was me getting angry at a stupid man on the television saying absurb things about Richard.

The eyes on these type of reconstructions always look a bit funny though don't they?
 
I read somewhere (I've read too much today and am confused as to where I read what) it's computer generated so couldn't be influenced by the portraits


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 13:28
Subject: RE: Face Reconstruction

 
Hi, Cecilia and Everyone 

Now, now, Cecilia. What you've written shows that those so inclined will be able to find something negative even in the charming facial reconstruction. I can just imagine Michael Hicks saying, See he looks sly!

My understanding of facial reconstruction is that there are some variables possible in the reconstruction of the soft tissues. However, there is no doubt in my mind that there are the bony structures present in Richard's case to determine the major features of the face, as has been noted by JAH, the chin and the nose in particular. He doesn't look a bit like Laurence Olivier imho (whose model after all was the Big Bad Wolf and Broadway producer/director Jed Harris). I'm patting myself on the back, because I looked at the prominent jaw on the skull and said to myself, Myself, I said, I think he will most resemble the NPG portrait. And it's obvious that's the one they must have drawn most from  but that is no doubt that the NPG portrait also seems to bear the greatest resemblance to the skull, so I am sure that that is what determined that they would rely on it more than the other portraits, since none seem to be the life
originals.

Much as I felt drawn to Richard as a historical character who had been unfairly judged, I must say that the identification of the skeleton and now this image, which really almost brings him back to life, takes the experience to a whole new level.

I hope this is not a flash in the pan that fades in a few months, but a phenomenon which will remain and enable even greater efforts to counter the Tudorists. (BTW, it really shouldn't take much effort to point out, curvature of the spine to the contrary, Richard would not have been a hunchback; he would not have had a hump. The condition would basically make his trunk shorter than it would have been had he had a normal spine. The hunchback is still a twisted image, along with the deformed left arm, of the propagandists.)

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com

or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cecilia Latella
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:27 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Face Reconstruction

It was indeed a fine work, what they did with the reconstruction (the same friend who gave me the screencaps commented that the face was rounder than she expected - I do wonder if they had also Laurence Olivier somewhat in mind), although the more I look at it the more I find something possibly sly in his expression... I'll go back to my own way of imagining him, I think!

Cecilia

________________________________
Da: sweethelly2003 mailto:sweethelly2003%40yahoo.com.au >
A: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Inviato: Martedì 5 Febbraio 2013 0:54
Oggetto: Face Reconstruction

I think I can see some resemblance between the reconstruction and the paintings. The nose and the strong chin. Of cause how much was the reconstructor (is that the right word?) been influenced by the paintings, however hard she may tried not to be.

The mouth is a much nicer, more generous that the mean, pinched one often seen in paintings. Wonder why!

It shows an handsome face but I suspect in real life his skin would not be so smooth, more weathered. That is not a criticism, I don't mind the more rugged look!

Luckily I'm getting my computer fixed tomorrow since I've lost the sound. Then I will have a good time listening to the different downloads.

I hope one of the Australian channels does buy the documentary or it comes out on DVD. Something to keep.

Blessings to all those wonderful people involved in this historical and wonderful event.

Helen

P.S. I even dreamed about Richard III last night. Except a part of the dreams was me getting angry at a stupid man on the television saying absurb things about Richard.

Cecilia Latella wrote:
>
> It was indeed a fine work, what they did with the reconstruction (the same friend who gave me the screencaps commented that the face was rounder than she expected - I do wonder if they had also Laurence Olivier somewhat in mind), although the more I look at it the more I find something possibly sly in his expression... I'll go back to my own way of imagining him, I think!
>
> Cecilia

Carol responds:

Odd. I see a dreamy absent-mindedness and maybe a touch of repressed pain or sadness. It's all in the eye of the beholder, I think. I didn't notice any roundness, but they gave him pink cheeks. The only detail that seems wrong to me is the eye color, which should probably be blue or gray.

Carol

I can definitely see the Windsor portrait in the shape of the face - just younger and less care-worn.  What the Society really needs to invest in is a 3D photo for the new website.  Not difficult to arrange as the kit can be hired.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: Face Reconstruction


 
Cecilia Latella wrote:
>
> It was indeed a fine work, what they did with the reconstruction (the same friend who gave me the screencaps commented that the face was rounder than she expected - I do wonder if they had also Laurence Olivier somewhat in mind), although the more I look at it the more I find something possibly sly in his expression... I'll go back to my own way of imagining him, I think!
>
> Cecilia

Carol responds:

Odd. I see a dreamy absent-mindedness and maybe a touch of repressed pain or sadness. It's all in the eye of the beholder, I think. I didn't notice any roundness, but they gave him pink cheeks. The only detail that seems wrong to me is the eye color, which should probably be blue or gray.

Carol

Cecilia Latella wrote:

"It was indeed a fine work, what they did with the reconstruction (the same
friend who gave me the screencaps commented that the face was rounder than
she expected - I do wonder if they had also Laurence Olivier somewhat in
mind), although the more I look at it the more I find something possibly sly
in his expression... I'll go back to my own way of imagining him, I think!"

First, thank you for the links and thank your friend for the "snaps"! I
never thought I'd use "Richard III" and "snaps" (as in casusal photos) in
the same sentence!
I also thought of Olivier when I first saw them - and that's not a bad
thing. I've only seen bits and pieces of his "Richard III", but I do seem to
recall that Olivier's portrayal relied heavily on how he used his body, from
the neck down, and his face remained obviously "Laurence Olivier" - a quite
handsome man. If I read the BBC article correctly, the people doig the
reconstruction had no idea who it was or from when until AFTER they had
finished. Perhaps Lord Olivier was an unknown descendant of Richard's
family?
I also agree with Carol (I think it was) in that any "sly" look is due not
having "Richard" looking straight at the viewer. Differences between the
Richard of the "snaps" and the various portraits could simply be the
difference between a reconstruction representing Richard at his best, had he
NOT had all the cares and problems to age him.
Doug

Johanne Tournier wrote:
[snip]
> I hope this is not a flash in the pan that fades in a few months, but a phenomenon which will remain and enable even greater efforts to counter the Tudorists. (BTW, it really shouldn’t take much effort to point out, curvature of the spine to the contrary, Richard would not have been a hunchback; he would not have had a “hump.” The condition would basically make his trunk shorter than it would have been had he had a normal spine. The hunchback is still a “twisted” image, along with the deformed left arm, of the propagandists.)

Carol responds:

If only the documentary had made that clearer and the reporters would grasp the concept more clearly!

I actually looked up Yahoo support groups for people with scoliosis in hope of finding comments about Richard but found to my disgust that they were filled with spam relating to sex partners! I still hope that Princess Eugenie says something in his defense. Had his scoliosis been discovered and corrected at age twelve as hers was (obviously impossible in the fifteenth century) there would have been no "crookback" taunts after his death and not even a raised right shoulder to comment on. And I'm still waiting for Richard Duke of Gloucester, patron of the R III Society, to comment on the discoveries.

Carol

Who could blame him, if Richard III did look sly. Heck, the world was after him. I did not get that impression. I thought he looked handsome, healthy and very regal.




From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 11:06 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Face Reconstruction



Cecilia Latella wrote:

"It was indeed a fine work, what they did with the reconstruction (the same
friend who gave me the screencaps commented that the face was rounder than
she expected - I do wonder if they had also Laurence Olivier somewhat in
mind), although the more I look at it the more I find something possibly sly
in his expression... I'll go back to my own way of imagining him, I think!"

First, thank you for the links and thank your friend for the "snaps"! I
never thought I'd use "Richard III" and "snaps" (as in casusal photos) in
the same sentence!
I also thought of Olivier when I first saw them - and that's not a bad
thing. I've only seen bits and pieces of his "Richard III", but I do seem to
recall that Olivier's portrayal relied heavily on how he used his body, from
the neck down, and his face remained obviously "Laurence Olivier" - a quite
handsome man. If I read the BBC article correctly, the people doig the
reconstruction had no idea who it was or from when until AFTER they had
finished. Perhaps Lord Olivier was an unknown descendant of Richard's
family?
I also agree with Carol (I think it was) in that any "sly" look is due not
having "Richard" looking straight at the viewer. Differences between the
Richard of the "snaps" and the various portraits could simply be the
difference between a reconstruction representing Richard at his best, had he
NOT had all the cares and problems to age him.
Doug

I copied this comment from one of the articles (hope it's ok to do that !) It is one of the best I've read regarding Richard's scoliosis.
  * pmalet .edu   wrote "As a physician, I was intrigued to see the photo of the outline of his skeleton - he had severe scoliosis and it appears that the scoliosis in the lower thoracic spine was lateral in direction. This is a curvature of the spine, and not necessarily, indeed not likely it appears to me, a hunchback.

As someone also with a keen interest in English medieval history, I would point out that Richard's scoliosis did not prevent him from being a formidable armed fighter. The historical record tells us that he fought outstandingly in personal armed combat in a number of battles, including his last one at Bosworth Field. Therefore, he was not physically impaired by his medical condition, regardless of the unflattering physical picture Shakespeare and others have portrayed of him"
*
* Vickie

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: Face Reconstruction

 
Johanne Tournier wrote:
[snip]
> I hope this is not a flash in the pan that fades in a few months, but a phenomenon which will remain and enable even greater efforts to counter the Tudorists. (BTW, it really shouldn't take much effort to point out, curvature of the spine to the contrary, Richard would not have been a hunchback; he would not have had a hump. The condition would basically make his trunk shorter than it would have been had he had a normal spine. The hunchback is still a twisted image, along with the deformed left arm, of the propagandists.)

Carol responds:

If only the documentary had made that clearer and the reporters would grasp the concept more clearly!

I actually looked up Yahoo support groups for people with scoliosis in hope of finding comments about Richard but found to my disgust that they were filled with spam relating to sex partners! I still hope that Princess Eugenie says something in his defense. Had his scoliosis been discovered and corrected at age twelve as hers was (obviously impossible in the fifteenth century) there would have been no "crookback" taunts after his death and not even a raised right shoulder to comment on. And I'm still waiting for Richard Duke of Gloucester, patron of the R III Society, to comment on the discoveries.

Carol

I was simply expressing my personal reaction after observing for quite a long time the screen caps. As a comic book artist, the expression reminded me the one that can be used sometimes, in comic, in addition to some kind of thought balloon, to express the fact that the character is thinking of an opposite thing to what he's just finished to say. But he could also be remembering something or being genuinely pleased with something. Expressions are really just a matter of nuances. I did not mean that I *wanted* him to look sly or that the people who did the reconstruction had that intention. I believe that they did their best not to give him a worried or weary look, that is what we can find in most portraits.

I also personally believe that Olivier did a splendid job with Shakespeare's Richard... And he was also one of the few, back then, to add a caption at the beginning of the movie explaining that Shakespeare's Richard was not the same as in history. A clarification Al Pacino never did, for example, in his Looking for Richard.

And also thanks for telling me that he had blue eyes in the reconstruction!

Cecilia






________________________________
Da: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
A: "" <>
Inviato: Martedì 5 Febbraio 2013 18:05
Oggetto: RE: Face Reconstruction


 
Who could blame him, if Richard III did look sly. Heck, the world was after him. I did not get that impression. I thought he looked handsome, healthy and very regal.




From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 11:06 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Face Reconstruction



Cecilia Latella wrote:

"It was indeed a fine work, what they did with the reconstruction (the same
friend who gave me the screencaps commented that the face was rounder than
she expected - I do wonder if they had also Laurence Olivier somewhat in
mind), although the more I look at it the more I find something possibly sly
in his expression... I'll go back to my own way of imagining him, I think!"

First, thank you for the links and thank your friend for the "snaps"! I
never thought I'd use "Richard III" and "snaps" (as in casusal photos) in
the same sentence!
I also thought of Olivier when I first saw them - and that's not a bad
thing. I've only seen bits and pieces of his "Richard III", but I do seem to
recall that Olivier's portrayal relied heavily on how he used his body, from
the neck down, and his face remained obviously "Laurence Olivier" - a quite
handsome man. If I read the BBC article correctly, the people doig the
reconstruction had no idea who it was or from when until AFTER they had
finished. Perhaps Lord Olivier was an unknown descendant of Richard's
family?
I also agree with Carol (I think it was) in that any "sly" look is due not
having "Richard" looking straight at the viewer. Differences between the
Richard of the "snaps" and the various portraits could simply be the
difference between a reconstruction representing Richard at his best, had he
NOT had all the cares and problems to age him.
Doug