Content-wise, there is nothing at all wrong with THE LAST JOURNEY OF THE MAGNA CARTA KING. King John was a remarkable archivist, and it is possible to discover a virtual day-to-day account of his activities. He was a vain as well as a despotic king, with little regard for his people and an inflated vision of himself. Traveling round the country with a huge retinue of servants, players, clothiers, lovers, cooks, and other minions, he was a continual drain on the national purse. It was thus hardly surprising that the all-powerful barons should try to restrict his authority by forcing him to sign Magna Carta. Yet it did not seem that John's experiences were appreciated by all future kings: Charles I acted in much the same manner during the 1620s and 1630s, and thereby causing the English Civil War in the subsequent decade.
What really sticks in the critical craw, however, is the way in which this documentary has been constructed. The BBC seem to have this fascination with academics; if you are fortunate enough to obtain a doctorate, then it's almost certain that you can use it in the opening credits. It provides a guarantee of academic credibility to the non-academic audience. The only snag is that DOCTOR Ben Robinson is a terrible presenter. He has this annoying habit of SPEAKING IN CAPITAL LETTERS, which makes it seems as if every sentence of his narration is TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT. Some more vocal light and shade would come in useful.
The documentary also contains some other irritating conventions. One academic witness is introduced as "An expert on King John," which seems a little unnecessary. If he weren't an expert, then he would not have been asked to contribute to the documentary. This expert has a habit of talking down to viewers, almost as if they were learners listening to his lectures. Just because academics are accustomed to speaking in public doesn't mean that they are necessarily good at it.
Diana Hare's program also contains some other irritating conventions such as having Robinson and guests wandering the streets of Bury St. Edmunds, watched with fascination by local shoppers. Why documentaries cannot offer some alternative visual distractions (for example, historic maps, pictures or other ephemera) is a moot point.
The BBC is extremely good in its output of historical documentaries (conforming to its public service remit), but I do wish they would ask their producers to structure them differently.
What really sticks in the critical craw, however, is the way in which this documentary has been constructed. The BBC seem to have this fascination with academics; if you are fortunate enough to obtain a doctorate, then it's almost certain that you can use it in the opening credits. It provides a guarantee of academic credibility to the non-academic audience. The only snag is that DOCTOR Ben Robinson is a terrible presenter. He has this annoying habit of SPEAKING IN CAPITAL LETTERS, which makes it seems as if every sentence of his narration is TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT. Some more vocal light and shade would come in useful.
The documentary also contains some other irritating conventions. One academic witness is introduced as "An expert on King John," which seems a little unnecessary. If he weren't an expert, then he would not have been asked to contribute to the documentary. This expert has a habit of talking down to viewers, almost as if they were learners listening to his lectures. Just because academics are accustomed to speaking in public doesn't mean that they are necessarily good at it.
Diana Hare's program also contains some other irritating conventions such as having Robinson and guests wandering the streets of Bury St. Edmunds, watched with fascination by local shoppers. Why documentaries cannot offer some alternative visual distractions (for example, historic maps, pictures or other ephemera) is a moot point.
The BBC is extremely good in its output of historical documentaries (conforming to its public service remit), but I do wish they would ask their producers to structure them differently.
