The First World War from Above

[Bart150]

is there any need for these constant personal attacks on the Producer??

I don’t see anything wrong with naming the producer of the programme and hoping he won’t be commissioned to make any more.

On this thread Fergal Keane the presenter has been criticised by name far more often than the producer Mark Radice; so far nobody has complained that there is something unfair about naming Fergal Keane and wishing that the BBC would not use him and people like him.

The producer has far more responsibility for the shape of a documentary programme than the presenter. He must surely take responsibilty for the fundamental defect of this particular programme: it failed by a huge margin to meet one basic requirement of any documentary tv programme: to have a clearly definable scope and stick to it.

That amounts to grossly incompetent work by Mark Radice. The BBC needs to be told.

[Agh57]

I don't see anything wrong with naming the producer of the programme and hoping he won't be commissioned to make any more.

On this thread Fergal Keane the presenter has been criticised by name far more often than the producer Mark Radice; so far nobody has complained that there is something unfair about naming Fergal Keane and wishing that the BBC would not use him and people like him.

The producer has far more responsibility for the shape of a documentary programme than the presenter. He must surely take responsibilty for the fundamental defect of this particular programme: it failed by a huge margin to meet one basic requirement of any documentary tv programme: to have a clearly definable scope and stick to it.

That amounts to grossly incompetent work by Mark Radice. The BBC needs to be told.

I'm sure we've all applied your extremely high standards during the course of our own working lives!

I feel a sense of perspective is needed here.

I don't disagree with the majority of faults others have highlighted here, but you have to wonder if anyone at the beeb is going to take such inflammatory language seriously!

[Agh57]

At the end of the day, he was employed to produce a TV programme for the general public and not just for the members of this forum.

All the non-experts I have spoken to enjoyed it and said they found it more interesting than they thought they would.

On that (albeit simplistic) basis, surely the Producer has acheived his original aims.

I agree the expert was not great, but assuming the Producer is not a "Great War" expert, how can he possibly question what the expert is saying.

[KIRKY]

I quite enjoyed it! Anything with pictures of WW1 and in particular The Somme in is good enough for me! Not made for Open University but Joe Public. All people who saw it that I have spoken to thought it was good.

Probably too many frustrated wannabe presenters on the Forum?

Tony

[Alan Tucker]

At the end I looked at the credits for a named historical consultant - there wasn't one. That says it all.

[truthergw]

But the point is there was something to provide cover. I suspect from the construction details the trenches in the documentary may originally have been like this

but the parapet was later removed after the war

When I saw them in the trench which was made for people of my stature ( or lack, thereof), I immediately thought that the sandbags were probably removed in post war clear up. The historian, who was head and shoulders above the trench was prattling on about how it gave cover from horizontal fire but not plunging. I wonder if there were meant to be CGI sandbags added? It set the tone for the rest of the programme so at least we were well warned.

[ianw]

The poor old "General Public" , which I think includes us, relies on the BBC not to produce expensive programmes containing a fair number of apparent "facts" stated by apparent "experts" that are just arrant nonsense and plain wrong. It's a liberty perpetrated on us with own hard earned licence money!

The fact that the average viewer may have enjoyed the programme shouldn't mean diddly squat to anyone with more than 3 brain cells.

[roel22]

I can't help smiling while reading this fascinating thread.

Having worked for Dutch television for 10+ years I can assure you BBC-programmes are considered top of the bill amongst the vast majority of my colleagues...

Not all programmes can live up to that standard, as it seems...

Roel

[Steven Broomfield]

On that (albeit simplistic) basis, surely the Producer has acheived his original aims.

I agree the expert was not great, but assuming the Producer is not a "Great War" expert, how can he possibly question what the expert is saying.

So we should accept documentaries which carry factual inaccuracies, which don't cover what they claim they will, using not-very-good experts? And surely it's the job of the producer to produce experts who do know what they're talking about, or (alternatively) use them properly so they can demonstrate their knowledge.

On the basis you outline, I'm the man to produce a documentary about space flight, and my mate across the road can be the not-very-good expert.

because "the public" like it doesn't make it any good. "The public" now, persumably, believe the nonsense that the programme peddled and are enlightened in some way.

Funny old world. there was me thinking the job of the documentary maker was to educate and inform. Not merely to entertain.

Maybe the bloke who produced X Factor could sort out some experts for us

[Bart150]

Having worked for Dutch television for 10+ years I can assure you BBC-programmes are considered top of the bill amongst the vast majority of my colleagues...

Roel

I’ve noticed that Dutch documentary programmes are sometimes thorough but dull. So I can well imagine people saying ‘Let’s learn from the BBC. They know how to make a documentary programme entertaining.’

OK, but please don’t go as far as making a programme entertaining by inventing things that never happened: such as the fiction of the phased mine explosions at Messines, all entertainingly dramatised with computer-generated imagery.

Bart

[centurion]

The original remit of the BBC was to educate and entertain. A good documentary does both.

[dfaulder]

At the end of the day, he was employed to produce a TV programme for the general public and not just for the members of this forum.

All the non-experts I have spoken to enjoyed it and said they found it more interesting than they thought they would.

On that (albeit simplistic) basis, surely the Producer has achieved his original aims.

I agree the expert was not great, but assuming the Producer is not a "Great War" expert, how can he possibly question what the expert is saying.

All probably true, but then it would still all be true (enjoyable etc.) if a talking head had added the "fact" that the Great War did not end until an atom bomb had been dropped on Berlin. (heaven forbid) At some stage there has to be respect for the subject - and I know that is subjective and in the eyes of the beholder!

If you are producing something that sets out to belong in the "documentary" genre (rather than say "light entertainment"), I think you have some level of duty to try and ensure "historical accuracy". We could probably have a separate thread on what is "historical accuracy", but I guess in the end I am not looking for that - it is too amorphous a concept; I am looking for a feeling that the producer has made attempts to be careful with the facts. This might be done by having an historical advisor; it might be done by finding a well referenced text and reading it and acknowledging it; it might be done by acknowledging that some views are controversial. Sometimes in simplifying a subject, you do throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Possibly I am being too "academic" in expecting that a documentary should have some objective (however slight) and that it should assemble facts, acknowledged opinions and flagged speculation towards that end. (But it would be nice if the program transcript was available and fully referenced!)

Is our news subject to the same standards - or lower since it has to be produced so much quicker? (That would be frightening as it "informs" so many of our decision makers.)

Or possibly this was light entertainment - building to the tearful denouement?

David

[Kate Wills]

The main reason I prefer to read fact rather than fiction is that fact is usually far more interesting and fulfilling. Yes, the BBC do usually have very high standards, and that is why we who love, yes love, the BBC get so upset at times like this.

For no extra expense the programme makers could have presented a documentary which reflected its title, and was factually accrate. Talking of expense, doubtless Mr Keane, his flight over Shuttleworth, the hire of the modern airship etc etc might easily have been ditched at no loss to the programme. Encouraging the telling of colourful incidents such as the washing of photographic plates in ditches, and editing out the general and mundane reality, might make entertaining TV, but is simply dishonest.

I often wonder how much shoddy journalism and innaccuracy is presented in documentaries on other subjects.

[Stebie9173]

I think the first one that made me (as a definite non-expert) roll my eyes was the line "The start of the Battle of the Somme was PLANNED for the 1st July 1916"

(My emphasis)

Steve.

[Muerrisch]

Is it not axiomatic that no media ever report/ reflect/ analyse accurately?

I could claim expertise to a degree on:

Meteorology

British army rank and "trade" badges throughout history

2nd RWF in the Great War

Frank Richards DCM MM

Military Mining

The Royal Navy in Nelson's time

Bellringing

..........

and even the broadsheets routinely cock up all the above if they deign to touch on them.

Snorts of derision probably greet EVERY news item in EVERY newspaper from some corner of the land every day!

Definition of a Journalist: he/she who would swap their granny for a good story, and then misreport it.

[ianw]

Having negligible knowledge of :-

Meteorology

British army rank and "trade" badges throughout history

2nd RWF in the Great War

Frank Richards DCM MM

Military Mining

The Royal Navy in Nelson's time

Bellringing

I am in line for a rather rambling seven part BBC series on all the above. Due to the cuts, this may be truncated to a single breath-taking programme covering the whole lot - the final scene of Nelson singing "Men of Harlech" being struck by lightning whilst semaphoring from a bell-tower near Hill 60 is a show stopper.

[balbeggie]

I think the first one that made me (as a definite non-expert) roll my eyes was the line "The start of the Battle of the Somme was PLANNED for the 1st July 1916"

(My emphasis)

Steve.

I did the same.

Having read the thread there does appear to be a market for a DVD of the original footage. Hopefully it will be available one day for us to buy.

[Bart150]

And surely it's the job of the producer to produce experts who do know what they're talking about, or (alternatively) use them properly so they can demonstrate their knowledge.

I doubt whether any ‘expert’, genuine or not, ever told Mark Radice that the Messines mines were deliberately set off in sequence north to south.

I bet what happened was this. Somebody in the project team read somewhere, perhaps in Wolff, something like this: ‘each of the nineteen land mines exploded almost in unison’, and thought ‘aha, the mines were not exactly in unison then; so we could do some really entertaining computer graphic effects of them going off one by one rippling across the battlefield. It will make great television’. Once that idea gained momentum they started lining up someone to say what a frightening experience it must have been; maybe at some point an expert’s weak protests were overridden or perhaps they carefully avoided informing any kind of expert of what they were up to in case he told them the idea was nonsense.

If you think I am being cynical, please tell me how else this outrageous piece of fiction could possibly have arisen. Anyone care to come to Mr Radice’s defence?

[NigelS]

More importantly, the CGI of Mr Wisty's demise is really spectacular and the viewers will love it.

as did his daughter when we showed it to her

NigelS

[Agh57]

I doubt whether any 'expert', genuine or not, ever told Mark Radice that the Messines mines were deliberately set off in sequence north to south.

I bet what happened was this. Somebody in the project team read somewhere, perhaps in Wolff, something like this: 'each of the nineteen land mines exploded almost in unison', and thought 'aha, the mines were not exactly in unison then; so we could do some really entertaining computer graphic effects of them going off one by one rippling across the battlefield. It will make great television'. Once that idea gained momentum they started lining up someone to say what a frightening experience it must have been; maybe at some point an expert's weak protests were overridden or perhaps they carefully avoided informing any kind of expert of what they were up to in case he told them the idea was nonsense.

If you think I am being cynical, please tell me how else this outrageous piece of fiction could possibly have arisen. Anyone care to come to Mr Radice's defence?

Didn't the "expert" say this? (or at least he inferred this during the conversation at the top of the tower in Kemmel) when they were discussing the thought of watching the detonation of the mines coming towards you.

I'm not trying to prevent anyone making complaints about the programme, I did not think it was perfect and agree with the majority of complaints that have been raised, however, I feel it should be done rationally.

A lot of progamming and material these days goes out without being checked properly. There is not the resources there once was despite what the anti-BBC media would have you believe. I'm not connected to the programme or the BBC in case anyone was wondering.

[bierlijn]

In defence of Mr Keane, in most cases it is the 'expert' who serves up the incorrect observation in the first place. The mines in sequence, the ornamental lake, the photographic plates in a ditch etc do not come from the presenter. And I'm sure he didn't photoshop the wrong tanks and aeroplanes into the production.

However, it was entirely Mr Keane who was pushing for an answer to "in an attack, how many casualties would there be per yard?" "Three dead per inch!" he murmurs later. Did that include Germans? No, the programme was aimed at the non-expert so it's not important.

"After the mine explosions, is it true that the largest body part found was a foot in a boot?" Yes viewers, the war was terrible and awful.

[usa2uk]

Very interesting thread - and I must say that I too was disappointed.

The show started out with such promise - flying over Ypres & Lens; going to the IWM; talking about aerial recon; interpreting the photos, etc. It just came apart at the seams when they went to the Somme, even though the original film didn't....

I will comment on the aspect of the thread which is dealing with "who" the show was targeted at.

One comment suggested that the show wasn't targeted as us, but the average family that doesn't study the Great War. The problem I see with that approach is this whole "dumbing down" phrase and approach, that we hear about from time to time. If this show was intended to capture people's interest and make them want to learn more, surely the BBC should have made every effort & attempt to make as factual as possible? As well as all the other issues we have with it...

And the other side of the coin is that there will be people in the know watching the show. So surely the BBC again, should have made every effort to make the show as factual as possible, and save all the negative comments & reviews.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers.

Jason

[Ralphed]

Due to the cuts, this may be truncated to a single breath-taking programme covering the whole lot - the final scene of Nelson singing "Men of Harlech" being struck by lightning whilst semaphoring from a bell-tower near Hill 60 is a show stopper.

Won't it take Nelson a long time to semaphore with only one arm ?

Simon Cowel would deduct point's for that.

[Herekawe]

Hi

Out here in the antipodies we look to the BBC to maintain a certain standard of documentary, and if and when this gets here it will no doubt be advertised as the award winning or ground breaking or powerful new documentary about the war in the air in the great war. Rubbish docos we can turn out here by ourselves. So being from the BBC most people will take this as the final word on the topic. Pity if this isn't so.

James

[mjh]

well i've been doing a bit of internet research , and discovered that the original 78 min film exists at Fort d'Ivry in Paris the home of the Communication and Audiovisual Production Company for the Department of Defense (Établissement de communication et de production audiovisuelle de la Défense, E.C.P.A.D.).

heres the link

http://www.ecpad.fr/la-bbc-tourne-a-l-ecpad

and heres a link with a translation

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.ecpad.fr/la-bbc-tourne-a-l-ecpad&ei=hNTaTNnTHYOIhQeDzojQAg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDAQ7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Den%2Bdirigeable%2Bsur%2Bles%2Bchamps%2Bde%2Bbataille%26hl%3Den%26prmd%3Divb

They do sell dvd products in their shop but not of this film. Perhaps if a few of us write into them, they may consider one day releasing the full version on DVD. One can only hope !