The First World War from Above

[ianw]

Very irritating that it would seem to be impossible to get a look at the entirety of this fascinating footage - google reveals that it was shown around 2005 at some sort of film festival as a backdrop to 2 DJs and their music!

The dearth of footage in this programme was particularly galling given how much it was puffed up in the pre-programme PR. It was very good quality on the TV. For goodness sake could someone release it on blu-ray. These sort of images are the property of humanity and shouldn't be clutched to the bosom of any particular organisation.

[Adrian Roberts]

What was the purpose of the "Borrow Pit" in the diagram of the trenches ?

[Adrian Roberts]

And another thing that annoyed me ... Fergal Keane didn't seem at all grateful or enthusiastic about flying in a Bristol F2B. This is a rare and highly-prized privilege awarded to a select few. The two or three Bristols flying are the only genuine Great War combat two-seaters flying, now that Shuttleworth have retired their LVG (the Avros are trainers).

Ok, he's not an aircraft enthusiast (he didn't even mention what type it was), and I realise many of you on this thread aren't either, but for those of us who are, sex would have to be extremely good to be better than flying in a Bristol Fighter.

Ewan McGregor looked a lot more enthusiastic and grateful when flying in his brother's Tornado and a two-seat Spitfire for his Battle of Britain documentary. Keane just moaned.

And I agree with Centurion that Michael Palin's documentary, which I also saw for the first time the other night, was a lot better.

[Ian Riley]

I cannot answer on behalf of Chris of course, but I am 99% sure that the Ypres bit was shown in a temporary exhibition in the In Flanders Fields Museum in Ypres, 2 or more years ago.

And on the Dutch WW1 Forum I have just read that parts were used in a French documentary in the 1980s.

Aurel

I agree with Aurel. I think it appeared in the Landscapes exhibition at the In Flanders Fields Museum in 2007 (?)

Ian

[Bart150]

In a message on the BBC forum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2010/11/the-first-world-war-from-above.shtml#comments

I have added a second link from there across to this thread of ours. Maybe if a few more of us do that and we all say why in our own different words, then somebody in authority at the BBC may feel like taking a look, and if so, get to understand what a poor thing this programme really was, and so just maybe try to do better next time.

[ianw]

... but for those of us who are (aviation enthusiasts) , sex would have to be extremely good to be better than flying in a Bristol Fighter.

I agree with the broad thrust of Adrian's remarks - said Mr Keane didn't seem to be appreciating fully the romance that is to be found in the Bristol fighter's rear cockpit!

As regards the Adrian's above evaluation of the comparative virtues of 2 (hopefully) rather different experiences, I will leave this for the contemplation of our members. Biggles flies undone and all that.

[Steven Broomfield]

Ewan McGregor looked a lot more enthusiastic and grateful when flying in his brother's Tornado and a two-seat Spitfire for his Battle of Britain documentary. Keane just moaned.

Not deviating too much, but that was another sleb-led documentary I could have done without. I agree McGregor enjoyed the flight, but the David Jason doc the previous week was rather more heartfelt, I thought.

Does anyone really believe, by the way, that the BBC hierarchy really care what we think? "The Masses" will have loved this nonsense of a programme, lapped up the tears at the end, and admired Mr Keane's varying facial hair. What do people who know even a little bit matter to the BBC?

[Ralphed]

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?

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.

Maybe the owner of the land places the shells,fake or otherwise to deter members of the GWF from trepassing on their land.

[Ralphed]

I did not mind the use of CGI to show some aspects that simply cannot be imagined as witnessed by those that were there. That said,there was not enough real comparison of the footage from 1919 and how that particular place looks today.

It looked to me that Fergal Keane was on one big 'jolly'.

Who would not jump at the chance of going up in a balloon/airship and flying over the countryside, be it France or anywhere else for that matter ?

Also who is going to turn down a chance of flying in a WW1 biplane replica or otherwise ? (he did look proper scared though )

But if your going to get the chance to show what the ariel photographer's did in WW1,at least take a camera and try to do the same thing.

Where were the BBC health & saftey people during the making of the progamme ?

FLY strapped to a large air bag = SAFE

FLY in a rikkity old Biplane = SAFE

Stroll past a live 90 year old shell = SAFE

[bierlijn]

Like others, I've also woken up to this being the 'must see' WW1 doc. of the year, and I've watched it again. The bizarre structure of the programme is very evident. It does adhere to the premise of the title and trailer for about 25 minutes, before swerving into rehash and melodrama, then returning to the airship pilot at the end.

It starts out at Nieuwport with original air footage, then next Dixmuide, then Ypres. So far so good. Then they bring in the blimp and accompanying aircraft which films the blimp in action. That footage starts with a great shot from the French film of the Ypres moat, and the same filmed from the blimp. Exactly what one would hope was the idea of the sequence.

From that moment, the wheels fall off. It appears that they took off without a record of the path taken by the French airship and couldn't locate the Western Front, so they flew to the only landmarks they were certain of, the Messines mine craters. But no footage from the French airship is offered for contrast, so presumably there wasn't any of those craters in the original film. This sequence ends with the 'duck-pond double crater' disaster, showing that they didn't know where they were, or where the front ran below them. 50% of this whole sequence is tracking shots from the accompanying aircraft and a separate camera in the blimp filming the presenter.

I'm guessing that when they landed, and the director realised that the original idea of following the course of the 1919 airship footage was a total cock-up, and they'd blown most of the budget. So they went off and filmed filler material on the Somme where 'the airship didn't visit' and filled in some stuff about the mine war and 3rd Ypres because they had some footage of craters from the blimp. Then off to ambush the poor woman in Paris, which at least was surely in the original programme proposal.

This is just a theory, but how else to explain the amount of material unrelated to the original premise?

[Gunner Bailey]

FLY strapped to a large air bag = SAFE

FLY in a rikkity old Biplane = SAFE

Stroll past a live 90 year old shell = SAFE

I agree with the first two but as there are about 12 people a year killed in France and Belgium by WW1 munitions, never take them for granted (please see previous debates!).

John

[Ralphed]

I agree with the first two but as there are about 12 people a year killed in France and Belgium by WW1 munitions, never take them for granted (please see previous debates!).

John

That was my sarcasm.

Strolling past the Shell,was 'set up' and therefore SAFE

(please see previous posts in this thread)

[ianw]

This was the message that offended the BBC moderator:

The message seems like fair comment to me - but you had the temerity to criticise them!

Good post from Hugh above at No 137 which I think is a good take on why the programme ended up "structured" as it was. Annoyingly, it could have easily been a really good programme. The actual original footage was great and as we all know good "before and after" comparison shots are winners.

Had the core of the show been solid, the final scene with the pilot's daughter would have been a suitable conclusion. Personally, I didn't find this too mawkish or exploitative and do believe that the daughter had not seen the footage before - otherwise she is a brilliant actress. Whoever controls the original film seems to keep in deliberately obscure so this may explain why she had never seen it.

[mandy hall]

When I read the BBC blog (directed to from this thread) and saw that a message had been deleted, I just knew it had to have been from one you on here.

Well said Bart.

Mandy

[keithmroberts]

I suspect that the post on the BBC blog might have been removed because it had an external link rather than just mentioning the thread here. Quite a few sites do prohibit the posting of links, I'm not sure whether that is in the BBC rules but it wouldn't be surprising.

As far as the sad programme was concerned, Hugh may well have identified the problem. It is a great shame that the BBC missed such a great opportunity.

Keith

[geraint]

Very interesting thread!

I watched both programmes and thought that Palin (after a stuttering start) came up trumps. I would agree with a previous poster that Pershing was let off lightly. I enjoyed the Persico interviews and would have preferred a greater contribution from him.

The War From the Air (as Bruce said) did have an appeal to non anoraks - "a jolly feel-good programme - I thought Cheryl Cole was going to come on" said youngest daughter. "Who is that poor bloke carrying his mate on his back? He appears in every WW1 programme you make me watch. He's been on this one four times."

Which makes me ask - surely there must be more archive footage somewhere? I mean they were making movie films in 1916, and wouldnt the War Office have utilised such equipment for war purpose? There are a few clips - often repeated on programmes; but there must be more, somewhere. IWM vaults? NA?

[johnreed]

"Borrow Pit" an area where material (usually soil, gravel or sand) has been dug for use at another location, perhaps for filling sandbags.

John

[keithmroberts]

I think the famous footage is down to the fact that only the one WW! movie has been digitised, so its just easier and cheaper to licence clips from the same item rather than to indulge in any form of research. My understanding is that the IWM has many many reels of old film, but no money to digitise it, and presumably also has genuine concerns about using it too often in its preserved state. To have risked some footage that had not been copied for that pathetic effort would have been a shame indeed.

Keith

[auchonvillerssomme]

Is there really anything new? Are they just trying to find different ways of showing us old stuff? Using these programs as a vehicle for presenters with a supposed 'interest' in the subject might look good on paper but a huge mistake in my opinion. When I read some of the very lucid comments and arguments posted here by some very knowledgable people who surprisingly don't actually consider themselves experts, I just wonder why the documentary makers don't go and audition some of thse enthusiastic amateurs. It must be very galling for a director who in good faith makes what they believes to be an award winning program, to be very accurately and rightly sniped because of lazy research.

[ianw]

I think the famous footage is down to the fact that only the one WW1 movie has been digitised

By this, I assume you mean the Malins Somme film. Importantly this has been digitally enhanced with spectacular improvements in detail that can be seen in it. I wonder if the famous clips constantly used from it are from the enhanced footage. They should be.

[dfaulder]

I suspect that the post on the BBC blog might have been removed because it had an external link rather than just mentioning the thread here. Quite a few sites do prohibit the posting of links, I'm not sure whether that is in the BBC rules but it wouldn't be surprising.

>><<

House Rules

We reserve the right to fail messages which:

• Contain links to other websites which break our Editorial Guidelines

If the post was deleted because the BBC mods thinks it breaches BBC Editorial Guidelines, I think our mods should review them and ask the BBC which guidelines we are breaching (why we even have a naughty word obscurer!).

David

[mjh]

Ypres footage was also used in the Dutch documentary In Europa (English subtitles) by Geert Mak.

Aerials start at 07:07.

Roel

thanks for this link roel

[Bart150]

I'm pretty sure my post was deleted because it named the incompetent producer, and he has the power to remove posts from the blog that he doesn't like.

[Agh57]

At the end of the day it was only a TV programme. Granted the expert was not that impressive, but is there any need for these constant personal attacks on the Producer??

Nobody sets out to deliberately make a bad TV programme, it is much harder to produce a TV prgramme than many posters here seem to imagine.

Let's face it, despite some of the glaring errors, many posters were always going to criticise this (as always seems to be the way). The programme was not aimed most of the members of this forum, it was aimed at the general public. Those non-experts who I've spoken to seemed to enjoy it and lets face it, their understanding of the topic in general is hardly likely to be impaired because of a wongly identified mine crater and the fact that the Messines mines did not explode North to South as stated.

[centurion]

At the end of the day it was only a TV programme. Granted the expert was not that impressive, but is there any need for these constant personal attacks on the Producer??

I don't think its a personal attack to question the producer's competence. After all they are paid hansomely (by us the licence payers) to do the job and if they do a poor one, as I think is the case, we have a right to complain. If we don't then we deserve all the rubbish we get