There seems to be an increasing trend among documentary makers to let the camera linger on the presenter, especially if he/she is at least relatively well-known and/or attractive. 'The Secret Life of the Sun', despite a fair number of good points, is unfortunately a part of this trend. As I think it's fair to assume that most people are interested in a particular documentary because they want to know more about its subject matter, one wonders why documentary makers point the camera at the presenter when one wants to see the historical site, the animal or (in the case of this documentary) the eclipse of the sun. Sadly, we saw all to much of Kate Humble and all too little of the eclipse. And all this is accompanied by a series of banal comments which tell us nothing about the sun which we can't already see on the screen. No sun secrets here.
Fortunately, we get some real science when Helen Czerski appears. Unlike her co-presenter, she manages to be present without usually intruding on the subject matter. Although some of this science left me (a layman) a little confused at times, there were some insightful interviews with a variety of scientists and some truly excellent visuals. Some of the facts and figures make the mind boggle, and we get a glimpse of what the next few years might have in store for us as the sun enters an interesting phase. Overall, the second half of the documentary may not be quite 'must see' but it is definitely 'should see'.
Fortunately, we get some real science when Helen Czerski appears. Unlike her co-presenter, she manages to be present without usually intruding on the subject matter. Although some of this science left me (a layman) a little confused at times, there were some insightful interviews with a variety of scientists and some truly excellent visuals. Some of the facts and figures make the mind boggle, and we get a glimpse of what the next few years might have in store for us as the sun enters an interesting phase. Overall, the second half of the documentary may not be quite 'must see' but it is definitely 'should see'.