Factual TV

[ladyofastolat]

I watched the first episode of Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds last night. It was all about those things that happen too fast for the human eye to see, and it showed slowed-down footage of various things - exploding spores, flying bees, swimming dolphins etc. - to show what was really happening. I found it all very interesting, and there were some really arresting images.

However, if I'd received a pound whenever he said something along the lines of, "We can't see what's happening because it's too fast for the human eye to see. Only by slowing it down can we understand it," I would be rich by now - especially if I had a bonus pay-out whenever he said Invisible Worlds, in capitals, as part of this. Yes, Richard, we do understand the point of this episode. It would be hard not to, given that you've said it 59 times already in the last hour.

At least it didn't make me want to throw things at the screen, which many modern factual TV shows do. You get the first five minutes wasted on an extended trailer of forthcoming attractions, with the presenter getting ever more excited as the music swells. You get the presenter pretending to be a total idiot, as he and the viewer go on a "journey" together to "discover" the answer to some question or other. You get the presenter raving about some wonderful sight, only for the camera to whiz around so fast that you can't look at it, or else to spend the whole time focusing on a close-up of the presenter's face as he speaks about how moved the sight makes him. You get "amazing discoveries" of things that have actually been known for years, and you get minority opinions expressed as fact - something I notice in history programmes about periods I know about, and which therefore makes me sceptical of anything they tell me in programmes about things I don't know about.

I did rather enjoy the recent BBC series on geology, though, since all the jet-setting and dramatic stunts did at least serve to demonstrate valid points. I've only seen a bit of the new Solar System series on Sunday evenings, but I liked most of that, too. At least the presenter didn't pretend to be an idiot, and explained things to us, rather than standing there nodding like a fool while some "expert" explained things to him. I was, however, rather distracted by the fact that he popped up in all the four corners of the earth while still wearing the same t-shirt.

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

The difference is between a "presenter" like Richard Hammond, and a real expert, like Brian Cox or Iain Stewart. When you find a scientist (or a scientifically qualified presenter like David Attenborough) who can present a series explaining their own point of view, you hang onto them.

There have been some rather good documentaries recently. I was very impressed by the one on the Great Rift, and another one on T.E. Lawrence.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

Indeed. In recent years, it seems to me that the trend has been increasingly away from getting experts to present programmes about things they understand, and towards getting famous names to play the bumbling Everyman being educated by other experts. I'm sure I've seen some in which the presenter really is an expert, but pretends not to be, for the purposes of his TV "journey."

Though, hang on, wasn't Brian Cox the chap who played Hogan in Sharpe? *rushes off to check.* Indeed he was. Different one, of course.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Brian Cox has been a familiar voice in science programmes on Radio 4.

Then one has to distinguish between Iain Stewart (geologist) and Ian Stewart (mathematician.)

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

Which was a very timely reminder that I have a book by Ian Stewart (mathematician) in my bag, which I need to return to the library. I'm very good at carrying finished library books to and from work several times before I remember to take them out of my bag.