Repetitive WWI film clips on TV news

[Moonraker]

There are two short film clips of the trenches that seem to be shown on national TV news programmes every time the Great War is mentioned. The other day both were shown in the same news item about pardons for British soldiers shot for cowardice. The two clips are:

1. Soldiers "going over the top", with one laggard apparently being shot and sliding back into the trench.

2. Bare-headed soldier carrying a wounded comrade over his shoulders along a trench and (I think) glaring resentfully at the cameraman.

I'm no expert on WWI film, but the first clip looks as if it might have been staged for the cameraman (and I've a feeling it's been discussed before in the Forum). My point is that news programmes must have much more archive material to draw from - perhaps the two above are on the topof the pile, or list, or whatever?

Moonraker

[IanA]

Pure laziness on behalf of the editor.

[Take on me]

Don't forget the one with the soldiers advancing into the mist and one of them falling on the right hand side.

Jon

[gporta]

In their -relative- defence, maybe it is a matter of paying rights to the keepers of the image: it is likely that they resort to the few images they have in their stock rather than pay to the IWM or any other moving image sources for new material.

Gloria

[Terry_Reeves]

I don't think it's laziness, its' partly the lack of footage able to make instant impact, and as Gloria has said, it also costs money.

Terry Reeves

[walrus]

I believe that all three clips described come from the film "The Battle of the Somme".

The thing to realise is that the bods that have to find clips to accompany such news pieces are working to a deadline. The editors probably know 'not a lot' about the Great War (and may well care less) and these are the easiest clips to lay hands on in their very limited time frame, leaving them more time to edit other pieces.

I just wish that they'd extent their film-clip library.

I'm not trying to justify such lack of imagination or effort, but I can understand it.

[IanA]

"Lack of footage able to make instant impact"

These clips have been shown so often they generate instant yawns.

"It costs money"

They could try cutting 0.005% from Jonathan Woss's salary.

Ian

[gporta]

"It costs money"

They could try cutting 0.005% from Jonathan Woss's salary.

I agree that it is not about the lack of money, but about how it is distributed... But then, how often an executive has raised his own salary while asking their subordinates to tighten their belts? if some people is not worried about their (lower-grade) employees' low salaries, how can you expect them to expend any extra money in a clip to illustrate the news?

I likewise think that using the same old clips is repetitive, unimaginative and lazy... not so say mean, as I don't think that the IWM, or any other film library, would charge that much.

Gloria

[Bernard_Lewis]

The media are tricky to deal with. When I - a novice with the media - was asked to answer a few questions about the Swansea Battalion in the Great War the second question (no advance notice) was on the Second World War. I answered it but it can't have been good for them (I wasn't an expert) and not good for my nerves...

Bernard

[SiegeGunner]

I've always thought that the expression on the face of the bareheaded soldier carrying his wounded comrade said "How the hell am I going to get this bloke past you and your bloody camera tripod?". Wasn't there a thread recently that identified them?

As for the endless repetition of the same clips, isn't a member talking to the IWM about copying some of their WW1 films/footage onto DVD? In which case, why not suggest, at the same time, that IWM should produce a DVD of 'new' clips to market to TV news channels - there are enough of them these days, so it should be worth the effort.

Mick

[IanA]

Guilty as charged

The whole DVD thing will take time and may not happen at all. The principal problem is that the IWM has no budget at all for this kind of thing - you could argue 'well it ***** should have!" - so any scheme has to wash its face financially.

The latest scheme seems to be streaming on-line films and I have said that as the footage will have to be recorded electronically for this, DVDs might be offered as well for a reasonable cost. There it rests.

I suspect that with news footage, the editors, as well as being lazy, are complying with the maxim 'You can't under-estimate the intelligence and/ or attention span of your viewers'. By showing the same hackneyed strip time after time they know the viewer will automatically open the correct box in their brain. Like washing the dishes and hearing the first six notes of 'Coronation Street'

I, too, would be interested in the identity of the toiling rescuer - if anyone can track down the thread I would be grateful. We do know that his efforts were in vain.

Ian

[Terry_Reeves]

A single roll of film lasting about 10 minutes, from the IWM, transferred to video, for private use only, costs £40 according to the IWM website.

With regard to commercial use, I think you will find that costs can easily run into four figures depending on the type of licence agreement. The IWM uses independant contractors to transfer the film to a format that is suitable for broadcasting. That fee is payable directly to the contractor. On top of this there is a handling fee which has to be paid to the museum. In addition, fees are payable for viewing prior to ordering and also for time coded VHS or PAL video's for initial editing purposes if that is what is required by the film production company or TV station.

With regard to the usefulness of these films; you only have to look at descriptions given in the IWM on-line catalogue to get an idea of what is on a particular reel of film. There may be millions of feet of film, but only a small proportion of footage is likely to have visual impact for the general viewer.

The same goes for still photography. If you visit the IWM photographic library you will see that many WW1 photographs lack impact, that is why the same photographs appear time and again in books.

The mistake is, I think, to assume that the majority of the nation has the same interest in WW1 as forum members: they do not. I would argue that for most people WW1 is of passing interest and programme makers have to make best use of the material available. They also have a budget, and as commercial organisations, they are going to make best use of the the terms of their licencing agreement, balanced against the best footage available required to illustrate their programme. As far as TV news is concerned, stories often appear overnight and there is simply not time to start trying to find different footage, even if the the right type is available.

That is not laziness, it's practicality linked to commercial imperatives.

Terry Reeves