http://www.ashleycross.net 20-something in charge of a blog Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:56:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 http://www.ashleycross.net/holdall/2008/lourdes-of-the-rings-stonehenge-history-bbc-documentary/#comment-119 Eilish Carr Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:38:09 +0000 http://www.ashleycross.net/?p=20#comment-119 Hello Ashley, I have to say I found myself nodding in agreement with everything you said in the review of the Stonehenge programme, and laughing out loud at your comments about the 'unexpected and startling' results. In the programme they seem to use the presence of the archer to justify the idea that the blue stones were healing and then pointed to the 'fact' that the blue stones were healing stones to justify the archer being there in the first place. Sometimes the narrative reminded me of a dog chasing its own tail. I did love the graphics, but they completely ignore the wooden phase of building. Most of the interpretation presented as new can be found in the guidebook. One the whole I would have to agree with you, I could have done without the CGI in favour of a bit more insight, or at least balance from the researchers (far too much about Lourdes, not enough about the actual archaeology). What has happened to BBC documentaries? They can't rely on Michael Wood to pull them out of the proverbial every time. PS I hope you are keeping well, I'm working in Hampton Court Palace now, and loving it! Hello Ashley,
I have to say I found myself nodding in agreement with everything you said in the review of the Stonehenge programme, and laughing out loud at your comments about the ‘unexpected and startling’ results.
In the programme they seem to use the presence of the archer to justify the idea that the blue stones were healing and then pointed to the ‘fact’ that the blue stones were healing stones to justify the archer being there in the first place. Sometimes the narrative reminded me of a dog chasing its own tail.
I did love the graphics, but they completely ignore the wooden phase of building. Most of the interpretation presented as new can be found in the guidebook.
One the whole I would have to agree with you, I could have done without the CGI in favour of a bit more insight, or at least balance from the researchers (far too much about Lourdes, not enough about the actual archaeology). What has happened to BBC documentaries? They can’t rely on Michael Wood to pull them out of the proverbial every time.
PS I hope you are keeping well, I’m working in Hampton Court Palace now, and loving it!

]]>