The documentary, Secrets: Richard III Revealed was one of mystery and science. The idea behind refuting Shakespeare's view on the 500 year old English monarch is very interesting to me due to the many different aspects of the story that is presented and the science used to prove the king's existence. The film does it's job in providing a sound bases for factual evidence and an entertaining way of presenting it to the general public as it's audience.
Secretes: Richard III Revealed, shown by the Smithsonian Channel, is formulated around the mysterious death of an English monarch. The investigation that is shown begins where Richard's story left off; a king riding off into battle against the Tudors at the Battle of Bosworth for his country. However, his valiant efforts were stopped short as the king was slain and his body was lost forever in history. Now, the team of scientists assembled has the daunting task of relocating the last burial ground for Richard, and bring his story back to life, one last time.
This documentary can be viewed with a more factual standpoint due to the use of the scientific method and scientific exploration throughout the program. Each segment of the documentary can correlate with a section of the scientific method: finding a purpose, researching, creating a hypothesis, experimenting, analyzing, and stating a conclusion. By having this as a recurring thought during the documentary (along with backing up their cause with factual evidence) the Smithsonian demonstrates that this film is not based solely on the purpose to entertain its audience, but to inform them of history beginning to change shape.
That isn't to say that the documentary doesn't have aspects of entertainment for its audience.
What the Smithsonian has done is taken something that could have been boring to the public and could have received bad reviews and turned it into something of a mystery. The filmmakers added aspects of suspense, like creating high stakes and cliff hangers for commercial breaks. By doing this, they have created more reason for the audience to stay and watch the final outcome. With a documentary like this, a little added mystery just helps with the general public's interest.
One thing that seemed to be unnecessary was the added drama. There were a few people that seemed to not be needed for an actual scientific investigation, mainly Philippa Langley and Simon Farnaby. These two seemed to be placed to create the "happy ending" moment many people want to see at the end of such documentary.
Would I recommend this to others? Yes, I would due to the validated research put into creating and uncovering these hidden secrets. Even though the film does have some drawbacks with the "casting", the evidence and research dedicated to finding a conclusion on Richard III's death is what forms a clear and easy to understand message. In most scientific situations, people do not get to see the time and effort put into creating a scientific and historical discoveries, but Secrets: Richard III Revealed allows for an insider's look at the scientific process of how such famous and historical discoveries are made.
Secretes: Richard III Revealed, shown by the Smithsonian Channel, is formulated around the mysterious death of an English monarch. The investigation that is shown begins where Richard's story left off; a king riding off into battle against the Tudors at the Battle of Bosworth for his country. However, his valiant efforts were stopped short as the king was slain and his body was lost forever in history. Now, the team of scientists assembled has the daunting task of relocating the last burial ground for Richard, and bring his story back to life, one last time.
This documentary can be viewed with a more factual standpoint due to the use of the scientific method and scientific exploration throughout the program. Each segment of the documentary can correlate with a section of the scientific method: finding a purpose, researching, creating a hypothesis, experimenting, analyzing, and stating a conclusion. By having this as a recurring thought during the documentary (along with backing up their cause with factual evidence) the Smithsonian demonstrates that this film is not based solely on the purpose to entertain its audience, but to inform them of history beginning to change shape.
That isn't to say that the documentary doesn't have aspects of entertainment for its audience.
What the Smithsonian has done is taken something that could have been boring to the public and could have received bad reviews and turned it into something of a mystery. The filmmakers added aspects of suspense, like creating high stakes and cliff hangers for commercial breaks. By doing this, they have created more reason for the audience to stay and watch the final outcome. With a documentary like this, a little added mystery just helps with the general public's interest.
One thing that seemed to be unnecessary was the added drama. There were a few people that seemed to not be needed for an actual scientific investigation, mainly Philippa Langley and Simon Farnaby. These two seemed to be placed to create the "happy ending" moment many people want to see at the end of such documentary.
Would I recommend this to others? Yes, I would due to the validated research put into creating and uncovering these hidden secrets. Even though the film does have some drawbacks with the "casting", the evidence and research dedicated to finding a conclusion on Richard III's death is what forms a clear and easy to understand message. In most scientific situations, people do not get to see the time and effort put into creating a scientific and historical discoveries, but Secrets: Richard III Revealed allows for an insider's look at the scientific process of how such famous and historical discoveries are made.
