The First World War from Above

[wheelsjbl]

Also very disappointed. For a show that boldly states it is "From Above" remarkably little of it was from or about the war from the air. There were token shots of the wooden "box collection" of aerial photographs and we saw a couple of glass negatives but nothing really detailed. To be honest a couple of shots of what were basically black zig-zag lines on greyish background did NOT show the detail that I was expecting from this show.

They made a great deal about how the generals could see troop movements and gun emplacements etc etc but that was never really shown. Apart from a couple of shots of a rear area barracks and a couple around Ypres no real detail was brought out from the areial photographic archive.

As a generic WW1 doco I suppose it was OK but I was really expecting and hoping for more. The first part of it even had an "expert" expressing that not enough attention has been paid to the aerial photography records of WW1. When I saw that I thought "great, we will now see some interesting stuff" but what we got was a mish-mash of very general information which has quite frankly been done before (and better).

I agree with Chris...a missed opportunity.

Brian

[Steven Broomfield]

Ropey to the nth degree.

A total mish mash of a programme, unable to settle to anything for more than a few secons, the complete lack of focus destroyed what could have been a worthwhile use of some excellent 9and rare) footage. Instead it tried to cram everything into just under an hour, with that breathless enthusiasm that passes for TV presenting these days.

A dreadful waste of some superb resources (and some excellent historians). I agree it wasn't aimed at "us", but I pity whoever it was aimed at, because the producers seem (as ever) to think the audience suffer from advanced ADHD.

I agree with Marina that the CGI was terrifying: it certainly terrified me. Indeed, I was almost hysterical. "Shocking" might also be the word for it. "Appalling" would be another word, as might "Ghastly".

And am I the only one to smell a huge bucket of fish over the german shell scenario? We're expected to believe that a shell, still live, has appeared in a place which has never been ploughed, and which has suffered, in 90 years, nothing more turbulent than the odd cropping by a set of sheep - yet here, by magic, appears a live German shell. Really?

And as for the finale, with the daughter and the revelations contained therein: the BBC should be ashamed. Piers Morgan or Cilla Black might sink that low, but a serious historical documentary? Dreadful.

In all, I feel remarkably cheated by this programme. It could - and should -have been so much better. A true waste of a lot of talent.

Finally, memo to Continuity. Don't let the presenter grow a beard during the filming of a programme. And buy him another shirt.

[Bart150]

Dreadful. Steven Broomfield's criticisms are entirely valid, understated if anything.

I speculate that the BBC started out with the idea of making an hour-long programme about the old film, then the people assigned that job decided that they wouldnt be able to keep their perceived audience interested in the old film for more than about three minutes - ok, ten minutes if they really wallowed in the schlock interview. So they broadened the scope and threw in more stuff about other kinds of aerial observation. But no, still their perceived audience wouldn't get much out of that either. All right, make up the rest of the time with some random items about the British Western Front that were nothing to do with aerial observation. And lo, the film that eventually emerges from the editing process consists very largely of the random material that is nothing to do with aerial observation. A real dog's breakfast of a programme.

But there was something in it which I hadn't heard before. It was clearly asserted that the 19 mines of Messines went off one after the other in sequence from north to south. I hadn't heard that before. Leon Wolff writes that the mines exploded 'almost in unison', which is not the same thing at all.

Can anyone tell me whether these incompetent programme-makers did manage to convey an interesting true fact here - or not?

[keithfazzani]

As I believe I stated elsewhere I was outvoted on what to view and I have recorded it, might watch it sometime. It was an attempted spoiler for the last episode of what is the most popular show since Brideshead Revisited, not in my opinion but that of the ladies of the house who won the "what to view" vote. From what you lot say it failed even in that.

[Chris_Baker]

Can anyone tell me whether these incompetent programme-makers did manage to convey an interesting true fact here - or not?

There was an unintentional 19 second spread between the explosions (first to last), according to the British Official History. That implies a random pattern, not a sequence from north to south.

[Rockdoc]

I think I fall between the two extremes. I enjoyed the overhead film sequences, despite the repetition, and felt that the destruction shown in those fragments of film demonstrated the effects of four years of conflict more severely than any shots I've seen taken from ground level ever have because you saw the sheer scale of the damage. On the other hand, as has been said, they could have made so much more of the aerial photographs than they did. Images raining down into what might have been an overlapping pattern before disappearing as soon as the last one arrived seemed to have little relevance to what came afterwards. I found this aspect very frustrating as I would have loved to see the images overlaid on modern equivalents and only then disappearing as the relevant CGI features appeared, showing where the trenches and so on were. They could then have moved to Keane and an expert on that same piece of ground, perhaps with a moving inset graphic showing where they were.

I think the programme spread itself far too thinly and, again as has been said, it lacked focus as a consequence. In that dear old phrase beloved by generations of teachers "Could do much better." There were probably at least two, one-hour programmes in this material if they had used sections of the film to illustrate a given section of the front and work on from there. You could have done perhaps three areas per programme. An opportunity was missed.

Keith

[centurion]

Poor and contained errors and perpetuated some myths. Also a bit of fakery such as when the camera zoomed in to show Fray Bentos from the air and some one had photo shopped a tadpole tailed tank into the shot!

[Bart150]

There was an unintentional 19 second spread between the explosions (first to last), according to the British Official History. That implies a random pattern, not a sequence from north to south.

That sounds more like it. So the people who made this programme are:

EITHER so thick that they don't grasp the difference between a slight lack of synchronisation and a phasing of explosions according to a deliberate plan

OR ELSE they are quite happy to spread falsehood if they think it makes a nice story that they can illustrate with computer-generated material.

[Muerrisch]

Very poor, an opportunity wasted.

As for the walk along the "trench" ....... trench?

I dug a deeper one for my pond.

And why does everyone on TV these days have to sport a scratchy 4 day stubble ...... we should have counted such from the beginning, has to be half a dozen.

[SteveMarsdin]

Good morning All,

I will say I enjoyed it but found it frustrating at the same time. When the pr-eamble takes more than 10 minutes of a 60 minute programme and includes the statement "that the original footage was 78 minutes long" you get more concerned as time passes, without anymore airship shots !!!

It was at the Sunday night peak-viewing slot on BBC1 so I can understand it needs to be aimed at the general public rather than those specifically interested in WW1 but it is worrying when you subsequently learn that what the presenter and historian said about the sequential explosion of the Messines' mines and how that must have heightened the fear of those "in line", was false.

It would be nice if the BBC could screen the full footage at another time or on another of their channels; apart from the diagram, the footage seemed to stop at the Chemin des Dames !?

[NigelS]

...but it is worrying when you subsequently learn that what the presenter and historian said about the sequential explosion of the Messines' mines and how that must have heightened the fear of those "in line", was false.

Whilst the reason for the sequential nature of the explosions that was given might be wrong, surely there can't be any doubt that, having just heard - & possibly seen - maybe only just one or even two of these massive explosions (weren't these heard in London ?), fear and trepidation would have been felt by anyone within miles who wasn't aware of what was going on?

NigelS

[Staffsyeoman]

Glad somebody else spotted the 'tadpole' that Fray Bentos was not. Disappointing, but we were indeed forewarned by the choice of presenter. He has acquired some historian 'street cred' through his recent book on the Battle of Kohima in WW2, but excesses and emotionalism - with meaningless statistics (inches of ground per headstone in Tyne Cot, anyone?). What a squandered opportunity to show something fresh in a new way via technology.

[Rockdoc]

There is nothing inherently wrong with a short delay between explosions and, depending on the distance between the mines, it might well be capable of creating additional damage between the craters. I'll grant you that it would be very difficult to get the necessary delays spot on manually but the principle would have been very well known before WW1 in general mining, especially in quarrying. IF the design of the blasts had been for them to be blown with a delay then a progression from one end to the other would be exactly the way you'd expect them to go.

Keith

[SteveMarsdin]

Hi Nigel,

As I said, I enjoyed the programme, I liked the computer graphics and would agree with Bruce's comments. Until I read this thread this morning the only aspect i found frustrating was the length of time the Fergal Keane's introduction took before we actually started seeing the battlefield shots etc.

I agree the scale of the Messines' explosions must have been terrifying in whatever order they occurred but the added fear of seeing the explosions coming towards you was something I hadn't appreciated until last night; it was a specific part of the programme that stuck in my mind, to then read comments on this thread that that wasn't necessarily the case was what concerned me.

I think the makers of the programme should be commended for creating a programme that non-WW1 "followers" (for want of a better word) found gripping, as both my wife and Belgian in-laws found it fascinating.

[centurion]

I agree the scale of the Messines' explosions must have been terrifying in whatever order they occurred but the added fear of seeing the explosions coming towards you was something I hadn't appreciated until last night; it was a specific part of the programme that stuck in my mind, to then read comments on this thread that that wasn't necessarily the case was what concerned me.

Except that it appears to be an invention. Looking at eye witness accounts the whole lot went up simultaneously as near as damn it - as was intended which is shown in various orders eg Operational Order for the Battle of Messines Irish Division "14. All mines in the 16th Division Front will be exploded at Zero Hour. If the explosion of any of the above mines has not taken place by Zero plus 15 seconds, it is to be understood that it will not take place at all."

There was obviously allowance for mis fires and differences in fuze burning

[Chris Foster]

It didn't live up to its title I'm afraid . I was very dissapointed with the whole programme . As others have stated it was a missed oppertunity .

[AGWR]

I enjoyed the prog but was rather uncomfortable watching the narrator wring every last ounce of drama out of the revelation to the pilot's daughter.

I agree. I thought that this was insensitive in the extreme.

Regards,

AGWR

[mccartney]

Watched the programme last night absolutely spell binding stuff - a must for the BBC to release as a DVD me thinks.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Whilst having any WW1 documentary made/shown is always a step in the right direction I was disappointed that this was anything but "The Frist World War From Above".

I would still say "watch it", to anyone that hasn't, but agree with Mr Broomfield that this was a mish-mash that lacked direction and focus. For me, it really was a wasted opportunity.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[centurion]

More disapointing is the amount of false or misleading information it gave out, when such documentaries are produced they are anything but a bonus.

A good example was the plain statement that Haig had decided to go ahead with 3rd Ypres (Passchendaele) as a result of the success of Messines when Messines was effectively a subsidiary attack to 3rd Ypres. Another was the ludicrous example of what the trenches were like. There were just too many such examples. It pandered to popular misconceptions and seemed more focused on its boring presenter than the war.

Self indulgent mediocrity was the result

[Steven Broomfield]

And am I the only one to smell a huge bucket of fish over the german shell scenario? We're expected to believe that a shell, still live, has appeared in a place which has never been ploughed, and which has suffered, in 90 years, nothing more turbulent than the odd cropping by a set of sheep - yet here, by magic, appears a live German shell. Really?

Obvioulsy I was the only one ...

[Seadog]

Steven, without wishing to start some long-winded debate on whether the shell was some kind of prop or not, take a look at my post 25 and you will see that the Tambour is surrounded by cultivated land so it is not impossible that this shell was unearthed from there and deposited where it was filmed. You will be aware of the VERY large shell sitting in the Hawthorne Ridge Mine Crater having been likewise tossed there by some brave or foolhardy farmer.

Bye

Norman

[Bart150]

Steven, no you're not the only one.

It seems pretty unbelievable that they were just filming an interview when they suddenly noticed there was a live shell just next to them. So in some sense the scene was phoney.

But there are degrees of phoneyness.

Maybe they had a fake live shell specially made for the programme. But maybe they weren't quite that dishonest. Maybe some bomb disposal officer had just found it and suggested they come over there and do the interview after he'd made it safe, or ... I'm not an expert but there are surely various possibilities some more outrageous than others.

That is the nature of TV documentaries.

[paulgranger]

I'm with most of the Forum on this, in that it was a promising concept, but not a lot was done with it. I was also a bit worried about some of the comments thrown out. The sequential blowing of the Messines mines does seem to have been a canard, and the old chestnut, attributed to Kiggel (though not in last night's progamme) about 'sending men to fight in that' was trotted out. I was also a bit suspicious about the (very clean) unexploded shell in the crater, and I thought there was something wrong with the photo of Fray Bentos, but failed to spot the tail. Also, in a voice-over accompanying some shots of very long range guns on the move, a French soldier was bewailing the shortage of small arms and ammunition in his unit. If the 'speaker' really was a member of a long range artillery unit, he'd have been in deep trouble if the Germans had got within rifle shot of him! Still, this may be an unfair comment. All in all, I don't think the Forum was the market this was aimed at. My work colleague, however, found it very interesting - his knowledge of the Great War is very basic.

[Seadog]

"Made it Safe", "Fake Shell" well in respect of the former the shell was complete with fuse and marked driving-band so it had been fired and if it had been made safe then that is the first time that I have heard of such a thing happening "in the field". As for whether it was a fake shell, well that is not even worth consideration, for those of you who are regular visitors to the Somme will be very aware that there are more that enough REAL ones just lying around without going to the trouble of making a fake one.............anyhow I would hate for this to turn into some long w...............!

Norman