Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

The First World War from Above


Verrico2009

Recommended Posts

Perhaps we might compile a list of tips for BBC producers as to how to do these things properly so as to not offend those who know something and not mislead those who know a little whilst remaining interesting to those that know nought.

Or perhaps it will be more fun to compile a list of how to screw it up:

  • presenter before content
  • modern day emotion before fact
  • carelessness with origins of sequences (after all going over the top was going over top, never mind whether it was the Somme or Ypres or ...)
  • stray "props" for dramatic effect
  • flash uninformative graphics (to prove to the commissioning editors that you can manage the technology)
  • ...

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the "Heavens, there's a shell" sequence was no doubt staged, but was needed in order to put across the message to viewers not to touch anything similar that they might find.

I was disappointed in the programme, too. I grew increasingly impatient in the early stages, when the presenter was flying around in an old plane, thinking: "But when are we going to get going on those precious 78 minutes of aerial film!"

It was incredible that the dignified daughter of the pilot had done so much research into her parents' lives, yet had not known about the existence of the film. However, it was totally unfitting to the supposed seriousness of the documentary to wring all that emotion out of showing her father's film to her on-camera.

Angela

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would have been interesting to send Keane up in the front of an FE2b - and then make him stand up to demonstrate the machine gun positions...

The shell sequence stretched the imagination a bit, and I too found myself thinking "Where is the advertised footage then?". I would certainly have preferred those over sequences like the CGI'd planes crossing the channel.

It made me wonder as to whether they had had to pay a fortune for access to the films and could only stretch to the royalties on a few small sections of the film.

I thought the "there is no footage of the Somme, but sod it were going there for half the programme anyway" attitude betrayed what the producers really wanted to do. At least "Mr. Unidentified man in trench carrying wounded comrade on his shoulders near White City" got his appearance royalties.

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Not sure, Norman. Where the shell was positioned wasn't by any means an obvious place to leave it - you'd have had to carry it quite a way to get there. Of course, sheep are remarkably stupid animals, so it is possible, as is pericolation; but, truthfully, I would have both on the outer range of possibility.

And, actually, no I'm not as I haven't been to the Somme for at least 15 years. Most of my 'knowledge' is book-learning :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shell had an off-the-shelf look about it; indeed, it was a very well-groomed shell.

And talking of well-groomed, what a lovely pristine trench! Gosh, you could have a Brownies tea party in there. Where is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shell had an off-the-shelf look about it; indeed, it was a very well-groomed shell.

And talking of well-groomed, what a lovely pristine trench! Gosh, you could have a Brownies tea party in there. Where is it?

The trenches are at Bayernwald. here

(not necessarily the best link)

I was disappointed in the program - had somehow expected more original footage and less of the current 'presentation style'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly wasn't the programme I thought I was getting, very disappointing not to see more of the original film.

And talking of well-groomed, what a lovely pristine trench! Gosh, you could have a Brownies tea party in there. Where is it?

The trenches are Bayernwald Trenches and when we visited in March 2009 there was lots of work going on and it was a bit like a building site in places. I am suprised they did not show the bunkers that are there.

Mandy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was assuming that these particular trenches were never full depth because of the soggy ground, but that was just my guess. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

Either way, the programme should have been honest with the viewer and made it clear that these are not typical western front trenches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It this was one of the shoddiest episodes in the programme. Keane's script harped-on about the carnage, and yet, there he was walking with Nick Saunders,their two heads cruising along the trench like a couple of ducks in a shooting-gallery.

It would be useful if the trenchbuilders, and the BBC, could dig a little deeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It didn't in mine so record button is set! But I imagine Downton Abbey will have some WW1 content tonight, it's the obvious way to complicate the inheritance issue and I expect the house will become a hospital. Here I go giving ideas to the scriptwriters.

Personally, I'm hoping for troops digging practice trecnhes in the grounds.

This post isn't entirely off-topic, as I did see a beautiful set of practice trenches on the APs shown on last night's programme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....there he was walking with Nick Saunders,their two heads cruising along the trench like a couple of ducks in a shooting-gallery.

That crossed my mind as well. The Yorkshire Trench would have given a much better idea.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That crossed my mind as well. The Yorkshire Trench would have given a much better idea.

Keith

Yes, the lack of parapets at the Bayernwald is always a little odd. However, I much prefer them to the concrete Yorkshire Trench sandbags, while for the sense of trenches in a landscape and using terrain you can't beat the Bayernwald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think you are being churlish.

I am not,nor wish to be a WW1 anorak,but have two Uncles who died,in the War.

I first of all,admire the WW1 Aircraftsmen,who took the arial(ariel) photos,that formed part of the Programme,which may have alerted a studious group to their existence and acess.

Equally I admire the foresight,if unintended,of the original airship crew,to fly parts of the immediate post-War Western Front,and record it for posterity,subject to preservation of the film.

I can discount the efforts that were made,in the Programme's making,to try and demonstrate the War's reality,which none of us can describe,even if we wished to.

However,having visited (modern)Ypres,I now appreciate,in images, the work and effort the Townsfolk took to restore,their Town,to its pre-WW1 grandeur and,therefore,appreciate that my Uncles,did not die,in vain,although neither are commemorated on the Menin Gate.

It is not for me to highlight the BBC Charter but surely the Programme,complied with it,so where is the argument?

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with all or most of the comments above. It was a pity that there was so little of the original aeriel photography; I was just appreciating the section on Ypres when it ended and then the bit of modern film was on a different line. I think the credits implied that the the Imperial War Museum was involved or had access to the film, but no doubt there are issues of copyright, however a DVD of the original film offered for sale would have lots of buyers. We can but hope. I will float on the WFA website.

Old Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think you are being churlish.

I am not,nor wish to be a WW1 anorak,but have two Uncles who died,in the War.

I first of all,admire the WW1 Aircraftsmen,who took the arial(ariel) photos,that formed part of the Programme,which may have alerted a studious group to their existence and acess.

Equally I admire the foresight,if unintended,of the original airship crew,to fly parts of the immediate post-War Western Front,and record it for posterity,subject to preservation of the film.

I can discount the efforts that were made,in the Programme's making,to try and demonstrate the War's reality,which none of us can describe,even if we wished to.

However,having visited (modern)Ypres,I now appreciate,in images, the work and effort the Townsfolk took to restore,their Town,to its pre-WW1 grandeur and,therefore,appreciate that my Uncles,did not die,in vain,although neither are commemorated on the Menin Gate.

It is not for me to highlight the BBC Charter but surely the Programme,complied with it,so where is the argument?

George

Most of the 67 posts made before yours clearly emphasise the reasons for discontent about the programme.

1) Very little of the footage which lends itself to the programme title was shown.

2) Too high a profile of the presenter

3) Detestable effort to provoke an emotional reaction from the cameraman's daughter ....and so on.

In fact anyone reading the thread can see why the programme struck the wrong note with those forum members.

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted very early about my disappointment with the programme. After reflection, I think I was far too generous. I didn't look closely enough to spot the dodgy tank image, but was more than a little surprised by the position of the shell, and just feel that apart from the very few minutes of original film the whole thing was a waste of time. I recorded it, intending to send a copy to my son whose current posting is an attachment to a US unit at the other side of the pond, but having watched it, I really don't see the point. I do appreciate that the idea was to appeal to the mass market, but this was a waste of time and money.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the 67 posts made before yours clearly emphasise the reasons for discontent about the programme.

1) Very little of the footage which lends itself to the programme title was shown.

2) Too high a profile of the presenter

3) Detestable effort to provoke an emotional reaction from the cameraman's daughter ....and so on.

In fact anyone reading the thread can see why the programme struck the wrong note with those forum members.

Kevin

Kevin,

We have to be careful,in the programme's analysis.

It appeared evident that the post-WW1 pilot and his wife,lost their lives,in WW2,in difficult,traumatic,and painful circumstances for a cause they felt right.

Should the BBC,have denied access,to their Daughter,to see her Father,when he lived?

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good evening all,

i wasn't going to post again but given all the negative reviews....

I've already posted that I enjoyed the programme but would like to see a follow-up solely focussed on the actual airship film. I wasn't happy about subsequently finding out that there may have been some licence with the "sequential" mine explosions but the other "faults" didn't trouble me greatly, particularly given that "non WW1" people I speak to found the programme interesting. if it stimulates some people to look further at the topic, then it will have been well worth it....let's face it this Forum is probably the biggest on the WWW on WW1 and we have 37,000 members, any programme at peak viewing time has to appeal beyond us "anoraks" !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was very keen to see this programme because the premise appeared to be that a modern airship would track the path of the airship which filmed the Western Front in 1919 and contrast the scenes. This would have been just as interesting for expert and amateur alike, perfect for a serious BBC1 documentary.

I was getting edgy when after 20 minutes just a few fragments of the original film had been shown, and when the modern airship footage was shown, it wasn't covering the same area as the original. Was this, as has been suggested, an issue with copyright? The programme mentioned that the film was found in the French Army archive, and I think it would be well out of copyright by now. But how else to explain its sparing use and the programme with the title "....From Above" even straying as far as tracking down the lady who fell in a hole. Which happened at least a decade ago and like other segments of this fiasco, had nothing to do with the premise of the programme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin,

We have to be careful,in the programme's analysis.

It appeared evident that the post-WW1 pilot and his wife,lost their lives,in WW2,in difficult,traumatic,and painful circumstances for a cause they felt right.

Should the BBC,have denied access,to their Daughter,to see her Father,when he lived?

George

That isn't the point I was making.

A modern approach to Television seems to be to wring out every bit of emotion from people appearing in a traumatic situation. You see it over and over again. I am sure that the director would have had a script so that the cameraman was told to close in on the subjects face, the interviewer says nothing until he gets a response and if they don't get the response that they want they come out with "what are you feeling?" A moment of triumph if some tears are spilled.

I recall a "Who do you think you are!" programme, cannot recall the personality, but they stood him in front of his grandfathers grave in France and when the camera closed in on his face they read out a newspaper article which graphically described his grandfathers moment of death when a bullet passed through his head. The tears which inevitably came were clearly what the programme maker was angling for.

This programme in addition to all the failings listed by other Forum members also declined into this cheap shot at making someone cry on camera when at their most vulnerable.

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, you wrote

'if it stimulates some people to look further at the topic, then it will have been well worth it....'

This criterion is so undemanding that just about every programme about WW1 ever made or ever likely to be made, no matter how bad it is, may stimulate somebody to look further at the topic and therefore be judged 'well worth it'.

Or have you ever come across a programme which failed that test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...