The message <[email hidden]>
from Mike Clark <[email hidden]> contains these words:
snip
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I thought it rather poor. Apart from anything else it looked as if it
had been designed as a one hour program and edited down to 30 minutes by
a blind man. Did Crane really go instantaneously from partway up
Hardknott to partway up Black Sails, or did I fall asleep at that point?
And surely more than a little disingenuous to say that there wasn't a
bridge for a mile either side of the ford on the Brathay when there is a
modern footbridge just out of camera shot. (Slater Bridge is only 500m
upstream as well.)
Quoted message said:I'm inclined to be a bit more generous in my assumptions. It appeared to
me that the programme had been videoed in very poor weather conditions.
I've no idea of the amount of time devoted to making of each programme
or the size of the video crew involved, but I'd guess the time was
relatively short and the crew was small. Thus it may have been that
certain aspects of the journey simply did not produce video footage
useful for the programme and hence resulted in the jumps in location and
failures of continuity during editing. It is very difficult to maintain
continuity in dialogue and video without considerable planning and
resources and allowance for difficulties with things such as the
weather. If you ever read up on the planning involved in the early
Attenborough 'Life' series it is quite astounding. David Attenborough,
filmed in some remote and difficult location, would speak to camera in
great detail about the next species and then would magically appear in
that new location and continue the same dialogue, yet in reality the
various bits of film would have been made in a completely different
order and made many months or even years apart.
They had no such difficulties making the first series where the
logistics would, in some cases, have been much more complex and it was
their choice to film in winter, presumably as it would have been easier
to keep the peasants out of shot.
Quoted message said:Anyway returning to Mapman the basic concept of the programme series is
to give a feel for what types of maps were historically used in
different circumstances. Thus it seems to me perfectly acceptable to
hide the presence of a modern bridge in order to illustrate how
contemporary users of the map would have had to ford the stream. The
programme was not about a factual account of a particular route in the
Lake District, it was an illustration of what map would have been used
by cycle tourists in the days before most people owned or used cars.
I know I said it was a modern bridge but that as because I wasn't sure
there would have been one there in 1900. Having thought about it I think
it highly likely that there was a footbridge there. There certainly has
been for as long as I can remember but that only takes us halfway back
to 1900. However the raised walkway (included briefly in a subsequent
shot) has always looked ancient and would have been pointless if there
hadn't been a footbridge at its end to let quarry workers across when
the river was twice as deep as Crane found it and really in spate.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Circa 1970 I drove along the track from the ford to High Tilberthwaite
in a Landrover and my memory of it is of a much rougher track than the
one he rode along and one that would have been impassable to a normal
car.
Quoted message said:My wife has a copy of one of the editions of the Bartholemews Lake
District maps as discussed on the programme, the map was her father's
who was a keen cyclist before and just after the second world war, that
map is dated early 1900s considerably before 1970, and it shows the
details of the route that Crane was discussing.
I can't see what point you are trying to make. In the days before ROWs
appeared on makes it was shown as a white road. The point I was making
is that in 1970 much of the road surface was a good deal rougher than
Crane found it and wouldn't have been a first class cycle route, ford or
no ford. I travelled at walking speed or less for most of my trip.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:And previously there was that nonsense in the bike shop. No one could
possibly be stupid enough to think a loose saddle was a design feature
and the prat who solemnly offered to tighten the nut could have been a
good deal more help if he had adjusted the back brake as well rather
than just saying it didn't work very well.
Quoted message said:My recollection of bar brakes which I had on my childhood cycle was that
there was very little that would allow efficient adjustment.
I didn't video the program so can't check for detail but that sort of
bike construction had been the same or many a year and IME rod brakes
always had a clamp adjuster on the vertical section immediately below
the handle bars. Leverage was such the the weakest wimp would have no
difficulty locking the rear wheel or indeed the front if brave enough to
use it.
Quoted message said:My interpretation of that sequence was that it was a contrived attempt
to convey how different bicycles were then compared to now.
Maybe, but that sort of upright bike with stirrup brakes was still in
the majority when I was a child in the 50s. However there were more
advanced bikes around in the 30s. I used a prewar frame in time trials
before I left school and gave up cycling and while it was a touch
heavier than some of the newer frames the difference was not great and
it didn't look at all different.
Incidentally rod brakes were considered a great improvement when they
replaced cable operated brakes on cars in the immediate prewar period
which is where that particular bike was supposed to hail from.
--
Roger Chapman so far this year 53 summits
New - 27 (Marilyns 13, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 26 (Marilyns 10, Nuttalls 17, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)
