Reaction to the Channel 4 Documentary

OK, I have been wrestling with my conscience about watching the doc, a commercial product I have no way of paying for, but I finally did. (I have every intention of buying a copy when it comes out on DVD, but I don't know when--or if--that will happen.)

Couple observations:

1.) I think they were exceptionally sympathetic to Ms. Langley: they went out of their way to emphasize how long she'd worked on the dig, and no one openly made fun of her for her emotional identification with the project.

2.) The shot that seems to show Dr. Appleby smirking or reacting with embarrassment to Ms. Langley leaving the room is what is known technically as a "reverse" or "reversal": that is, it's a shot from a different angle that was probably not recorded at the same time as the main footage. Normally, film shoots use only one camera, and each angle on a scene is lit and filmed separately. The let's-just-call-it smirk shot is definitely edited into the middle of footage of Ms. Langley reacting with sorrow and leaving the room, so there is no indication that the smirk shot records Dr. Appleby's actual reaction to Ms. Langley's departure. It seems likely to me that that's a two-shot of Dr. Appleby and the other researcher being told to stand there, the crew's finished lighting and they're going to start filming now. Dr. Appleby's reaction looks more to me like a slightly flustered, "Oh, man, that camera just started making noise and it's pointing right at me."

3.) Nowhere in the doc did they mention Titulus Regius, or address whether Richard had a valid claim to the throne. They also didn't take fifteen seconds out of the interview with Dr. Pollard to explain how the children might not have been a threat to Richard's kingship, and why; there was a tiny snippet of discussion in Mr. Farnaby's video chat with the Dutch Ricardian, but the only portion presented is Mr. Farnaby asking whether the nephews might have been a threat to Richard, and her definite, "No." Without an explanation, the Dutch Ricardian comes across as convinced rather than convincing.

4.) I detected no hesitation whatsoever in Dr. Buckley responding to Ms. Langley's request to drape the box in the Gloucester colors; rather, I sensed he was being polite in permitting Ms. Langley to explain fully exactly what she wanted to do and why. Moreover, Mr. Farnaby had set up the discussion by saying that no one was really certain about the protocol, since you don't just find lost kings by looking for them in parking lots.

5.) Except if you're Philippa Langley.

Your point #2 is right on. It was so obviously edited to make it look like the young woman was smirking. It was a silly moment in the doc. Maire.

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> OK, I have been wrestling with my conscience about watching the doc, a commercial product I have no way of paying for, but I finally did. (I have every intention of buying a copy when it comes out on DVD, but I don't know when--or if--that will happen.)
>
> Couple observations:
>
> 1.) I think they were exceptionally sympathetic to Ms. Langley: they went out of their way to emphasize how long she'd worked on the dig, and no one openly made fun of her for her emotional identification with the project.
>
> 2.) The shot that seems to show Dr. Appleby smirking or reacting with embarrassment to Ms. Langley leaving the room is what is known technically as a "reverse" or "reversal": that is, it's a shot from a different angle that was probably not recorded at the same time as the main footage. Normally, film shoots use only one camera, and each angle on a scene is lit and filmed separately. The let's-just-call-it smirk shot is definitely edited into the middle of footage of Ms. Langley reacting with sorrow and leaving the room, so there is no indication that the smirk shot records Dr. Appleby's actual reaction to Ms. Langley's departure. It seems likely to me that that's a two-shot of Dr. Appleby and the other researcher being told to stand there, the crew's finished lighting and they're going to start filming now. Dr. Appleby's reaction looks more to me like a slightly flustered, "Oh, man, that camera just started making noise and it's pointing right at me."
>
> 3.) Nowhere in the doc did they mention Titulus Regius, or address whether Richard had a valid claim to the throne. They also didn't take fifteen seconds out of the interview with Dr. Pollard to explain how the children might not have been a threat to Richard's kingship, and why; there was a tiny snippet of discussion in Mr. Farnaby's video chat with the Dutch Ricardian, but the only portion presented is Mr. Farnaby asking whether the nephews might have been a threat to Richard, and her definite, "No." Without an explanation, the Dutch Ricardian comes across as convinced rather than convincing.
>
> 4.) I detected no hesitation whatsoever in Dr. Buckley responding to Ms. Langley's request to drape the box in the Gloucester colors; rather, I sensed he was being polite in permitting Ms. Langley to explain fully exactly what she wanted to do and why. Moreover, Mr. Farnaby had set up the discussion by saying that no one was really certain about the protocol, since you don't just find lost kings by looking for them in parking lots.
>
> 5.) Except if you're Philippa Langley.
>