The First World War from Above

[bierlijn]

Outrageous! Mr Radice seems totally unembarrassed by the dogs breakfast he served us, and defends the glaring errors and misstatements it contains. Worked with the Imperial War Museum to ensure the film was accurate and well researched? That had better be true or he is impugning the competence of the IWM. If it is true, that's another publicly funded body not doing its job properly.

[phil andrade]

As mentioned in Post 200 (and, like learning French, I managed without tears )

Apologies, Steven.....sometimes I get so keen to rush and post that I fail to do justice to the contributions made by others !

Phil (PJA)

[ianw]

I would suggest the real point is to point out where they went wrong, and how they could do better. It's not difficult, and (oddly) probably cheaper to do a good documentary than a bad one.

Compare and contrast with the very good to excellent BBC4 documentary on WW2 poet, Keith Douglas last night. No CGI, no re-enactments, no sleb presenter. All they had was experts talking to camera, a presenter who knew his stuff, some archive footage (even most of it appropriate to the subject and place!), and some truly moving reminiscences by old comrades of the subject.

Simple, cheap (relatively) and very, very effective.

Seconded whole-heartedly. Just brilliant. Available on iplayer.

[dfaulder]

Outrageous! Mr Radice seems totally unembarrassed by the dogs breakfast he served us, and defends the glaring errors and misstatements it contains. Worked with the Imperial War Museum to ensure the film was accurate and well researched? That had better be true or he is impugning the competence of the IWM. If it is true, that's another publicly funded body not doing its job properly.

>><<We worked with a number of historians and the Imperial War Museum to ensure that the film was accurate and thoroughly researched. I do think that many viewers will have come to the film knowing very little about the First World War, and my hope is that some of these stories will encourage further interest in the subject area.>><<

(my italics)

I too would be interested in exactly what he means by this - any journalist on the forum able to tell us about the sort of "fact checking" we might expect?

David

[ianw]

Does not Mr Radice's cheery and optimistic blog pre-date the broadcast of the programme? I suppose at this time, he was blissfully unaware of limitations of his programme and the brickbats that would be winging his way literally out of a clear blue sky.

PS have now read down and found him defending his prog down amongst the comments.

I wonder if he actually watched the finished article with the various experts. I can't imagine that all of them were happy with it.

Interesting on his website, he states :-

"The film retells the story of the First World War from a new perspective".

[Rockdoc]

There's a response within the blog itself at No 45.

Keith

[bierlijn]

I've made inquiries with a friend at the museum mentioned.

Maybe the standards of fact checking are lower for stories

[Bart150]

I've made inquiries with a friend at the museum mentioned.

Hugh, If you can, ask him about the outrageous invention (as far as I know, always willing to hear counter evidence) of the deliberately phased mine explosions at Messines. That strikes me as a killer issue.

[bierlijn]

Having seen it twice, regarding the conversation on the tower on Mt Kemmel about the mine explosions, I think the pattern of question and answer between presenter and expert lead to a slight misstatement by the expert being developed into fully incorrect picture, rather than being retracted or corrected. It should just have hit the cutting room floor after checking.

What is mysterious is the use of the original French film. All that is shown is Nieuwport, Ypres, Lens, Kemmel and Chemin des Dames. But each is a rather short snippet, and all bar the last two are replayed at least twice during the programme. But the diagram shown briefly implied there was footage along the whole front. What about Verdun? What about the fighting in the Swiss Alps, which I was particularly hoping for more information on?

What I mean is, if you had this whole 75 minute film in front of you, is this how you would edit it? If the restoration of the film wasn't ready and you just had some small snippets you'd have to fill in with twice, wouldn't you wait until the whole film was ready? Baffling.

[ianw]

The more I think about it, I suspect that there may have been a maximum duration limit imposed on use of the original airship footage. If this was not the case, why would the producer choose to use so little of it?

[Paul Reed]

The more I think about it, I suspect that there may have been a maximum duration limit imposed on use of the original airship footage. If this was not the case, I can only think that the producer's fee was based on either a % of the total costs of the show or on the amount of the programme that he newly shot.

I've refrained from saying anything before now, but this thread is getting a little farcical in places. There are some very misinformed opinions about how TV works throughout it and I'm sorry Ian, yours is one of them. How people are paid in TV works nothing like this and its an insult to suggest such a thing when you have no knowledge or reason to even make such a statement. There are several TV producers who are members here and your comments insult their hard work and dedication to making serious programmes.

Having said that, personally I was less than happy with the programme concerned. Having seen the entire original film, I'm staggered at how little of it was used and I can only wonder at what advice was taken in the preparation of the script. I've worked with many producers over the years and every one of them gets an expert to check their script before broadcast, and they speak to many experts in advance before even the first frame is shot. To do otherwise is foolhardy.

Making TV programmes is nothing like writing a book, or even an article - the depth of what can be included, and the scope is far less, and for major channels like the BBC it has to be pitched at a wide, not narrow (expert) audience. It takes some getting used to and with a sympathetic producer some good work can be done. That it will not to be to everyone's liking is unavoidable, and goes with the territory.

But please, this is just descending into a 'feeding frenzy' of attacks and misinformed statements like that above, and does this forum no credit at all.

[ianw]

Paul,

I bow to your vastly superior knowledge of the way TV programmes are produced and funded - but in respect of this particular show, I would dearly love to know why so little of the fascinating original airship footage was used - whether by choice or necessity. I note you have similar thoughts.

In my line of work, I do have a lot of experience of the potential for big budget jobs to lose control of costs and not eventually deliver value for money. I don't suppose that TV production is any different. I would be interested to know the relative budgets of "The First World War from Above" and the well received programme about the war poet Keith Douglas. I would also surmise that a producer is paid more to produce an expensive high budget show with a star presenter than a lower budget programme presented by relative unknowns.

I have removed the element of my post above that you object to as you are correct to point out that I have no direct knowledge to support what was idle speculation and not designed to be insulting to anyone.

[dfaulder]

>><<

Making TV programmes is nothing like writing a book, or even an article - the depth of what can be included, and the scope is far less, and for major channels like the BBC it has to be pitched at a wide, not narrow (expert) audience. It takes some getting used to and with a sympathetic producer some good work can be done. That it will not to be to everyone's liking is unavoidable, and goes with the territory.

>><<

Paul,

Can you tell us more about how historians like you are involved in such documentaries?

How closely would you want to be involved if a producer was to claim (hypothetically) that he had worked with "Paul Reed to to ensure that the film was accurate and thoroughly researched"? How would you handle some of the points raised here such as the trench footage (already in the can, so hard to change), the sequential blowing of the mines (OK, the CGI may be done, but the commentary can be changed to reduce the impact), or the Fray Bentos tank?

Thanks

David

[Paul Reed]

Thank you Ian and David.

Ian, thank you for editing your post. I would add that if you are talking about a programme made by the BBC then the producer will be on a wage, not a set fee for a programme, and that wage will be in accordance with their years in the company, level of experience etc. For programmes made by Independent companies it is often the same, but not always and I suspect will depend on the conditions and funding of the commission.

David, having worked as a consultant on a number of programmes what generally happens is that a producer will take you on as the main consultant, although if they are wise they will talk to other historians too (and I would always advise this). In the first instance this will normally involve a number of meetings to discuss the programme idea, work out a structure, examine what can and cannot be filmed, look for contributors, suggest potential archives sources etc. The amount of input a consultant gives depends on their background and experience, but on every project I've worked on where I have been the main/only consultant generally I accompany the crew on all the shoots as well as work in the early development stage; I am not sure whether this is unusual, and part of the reason I often do, is that my role can often double up as a 'fixer' because of language skills, local contacts and the knowledge of what is on the ground today when it comes to filming. If you can offer something like this any sensible producer will jump at it because they have no idea where anything is, who they should talk to or what the significance of one place is against another. Its also often useful as you can act as a on the spot 'line writer' if its for celebrities who don't know much about the subject matter...

Under these circumstances you are normally credited as the 'historical consultant' in the credits, although this is not always the case as end title accreditation is an odd process and many vital individuals can often be missed out due to no fault of the programme makers. It usually also means you are asked to 'fact check' the final script, something I have been asked to do for every major programme I've worked on.

I would normally do a couple of programmes/series like this a year (currently and in the past year or so all WW2 related), but on top of this I get calls on a very regular basis from production teams looking for specific information or help on a particular angle. I did not, to my knowledge, speak to anyone involved in this and I don't know anyone who did, so I am presuming they did have one or more historical consultants, although none were mentioned in the credits.

How one falls into this work in the first place varies greatly and I would say there are many people these days 'putting themselves out there' and there seems to be a lot of 'historians'. Nothing wrong with that, but obviously knowledge levels vary greatly from person to person, but any producer worth their salt would want to check out a potential advisor before they start anything.

How this particular producer chose to work this programme I have no idea as I have never worked with him, and don't know anyone who has. If he was as useless as some here are trying to portray I can assure you he wouldn't be in the position he is now, and it is worth remembering that as a producer of a programme on WW1 with little or no knowledge of it, his work depended a lot on the advice he got. If he chose not to listen to that advice or not take any, then that is another matter but I would be very surprised if that was the case.

[Paul Reed]

Paul,

How closely would you want to be involved if a producer was to claim (hypothetically) that he had worked with "Paul Reed to to ensure that the film was accurate and thoroughly researched"? How would you handle some of the points raised here such as the trench footage (already in the can, so hard to change), the sequential blowing of the mines (OK, the CGI may be done, but the commentary can be changed to reduce the impact), or the Fray Bentos tank?

Thanks

David

Oops, that ended up being quite long, sorry.

To answer your specific point above, if a producer came to me with any of that I would immediately put a stop to it if he wanted to add my name to it to give it some credit. Under these circumstances producers normally listen as they do not want to appear foolish. But it is clear to me that all these points were not ideas of the producer, they are points made by one of the contributors, and only they can answer for that. However, who would sanction the use of such material is another thing of course.

[dfaulder]

Paul,

Thanks for this helpful insight. I don't know whether in the thoroughness of your reply to the initial part of my post you overlooked the specifics in the latter part or whether you would not want to be pushed and possibly be caused professional embarrassment - I notice that you say you usually fact-check the script of programmes where you are the historical consultant. Edit: whoops; seen your supplementary post!

So it possibly comes down to the skill of the producer in finding and working with an historical consultant. I guess this cannot be easy - you can either round up the usual suspects (in which case you may not be able to say anything "new"), or try to select one. Historians I believe are an unregulated profession (in that they are not like doctors, accountants, architects, engineers etc. who are registered), so for a non-expert, selection can be difficult. In this sort of field I guess not every historian is within the "academic circle of peer referenced journals, measures of esteem and research ratings of university departments" - and a TV producer may legitimately want to avoid an "angel on a pin-head" academic (that's not measured in the UK University Research Assessment Exercise).

David

[towisuk]

Paul, thank you very much for giving us a very concise insight into how the making of these programmes is structured. I'm sure that all the participants on this topic on the forum are more aware than we were at the beginning of the thread, about the process generally followed to produce a programme for television.

I don't think we are knocking the BBC for the sake of it, but rather the fact that the programme under discussion did not match others of the genre that we have enjoyed in the past, the errors in the finished production just meant it fell well short of the standards we were led to expect.

I'm still watching recordings of your excellent week long "Remembrance" series which changed my views on certain programmes that contain celebrities, I was sceptical to begin with, but was absolutely delighted by the way the subject was handled and delivered....it just goes to show what can be done.....

regards

Tom

[Paul Reed]

David, TV is a very small community and very often producers will often go to someone for advice because they have worked with someone they know and trust within the industry, who have spoken highly of that person. Academic background is never really discussed to be honest... I had to laugh when I read on a thread on this forum which questioned whether the reason I got TV work was because I had an Oxbridge background. That caused a few howls of laughter in Reed Towers, I can tell you.

Tom, glad it was of interest.

[20th Division]

Away on holiday-and missed it ALL I'm afraid ( luckily, some might add||!). I not only missed the programme itself but all the subsequent crits--most of which I have just finished reading. As a result I don't think I will bother watching the re-runs. HOWEVERr----does anyone know whether copies of the "ORIGINAL" 78 minutes of footage are available independant of anything else? Would love to see it ( as I'm sure we all would). Dave.

[roel22]

does anyone know whether copies of the "ORIGINAL" 78 minutes of footage are available independant of anything else? Would love to see it ( as I'm sure we all would).

Dave, in #115 I posted a link to a documentary which has a few (extra) minutes of the footage you're looking for.

Roel

[20th Division]

Dave, in #115 I posted a link to a documentary which has a few (extra) minutes of the footage you're looking for.

Roel

Hi Roel. Thanks for that---can't seem to access the "Europa" footage. Is this footage of the Original 78 minutes taken from the airship? or some of this footage within a documentary? Thanks for the reference--I will work on it. Alle beste. Dave

[roel22]

It probably has to do with copyrights and you living in Britain (I cannot view programmes on the BBC-website).

But hey, why bother when there is Youtube? Not the full 78 minutes, but the aerials shown in the much criticized documentary. Sadly not the amazing Ypres-shots I saw in the Dutch documentary...

Roel

[20th Division]

It probably has to do with copyrights and you living in Britain (I cannot view programmes on the BBC-website).

But hey, why bother when there is Youtube? Not the full 78 minutes, but the aerials shown in the much criticized documentary. Sadly not the amazing Ypres-shots I saw in the Dutch documentary...

Roel

Hi Roel. Just seen the original documentary. Excellent. I Agree with most comments. I found it a good documentary about WW1 for most people who may just have a passing interest.--it certainly did not go "below the surface" AND it WAS a missed opportunity as so many have commented.. I have tried again to get into your "my Europa" documentary but "pop-ups blocked" for some technical reason .

I would still love to get a look at the ORIGINAL 78 minutes of these valuable shots.!!-any ideas?

Cheers. Dave

. p.s. My Wife's family are in Holland ( Maastricht)-as you suggest it is covered by some sort of UK copyright, might they be a able to track down a copy?

[Regulus 1]

The film is in the audio-visual archive of the French Ministry of Defence at the Fort d'Ivry, see this article, in French however :

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

You can contact them on this adress :

l'ECPAD, 2 à 8, route du Fort, F 94205 Ivry-sur-Seine Cedex, France.

Or fill in the form in French here :

http://www.ecpad.fr/contacts

[towisuk]

Just watched a new WW1 documentary film on satellite tv which is a French/Belgian production, the opening scenes are shot from the Airship which is the basis of this topic...the film is.....

14-18, The Noise and the Fury (14-18, Le Bruit et la Fureur) released in 2009

And let me say straight away, it knocks "The First World War from Above " into a cocked hat, at 100 mins long, it gives an account of how WW1 started and the effect on the soldiers and population who were caught up in the war.

I have never seen over 90% of the WW1 footage that is contained in this documentary, there are some really harrowing scenes, and much of the original footage has had colour added which gives it an extra dimension. Film of the French, Belgian, German, Italian. Russian, British and Commonwealth armies as well as footage of the population coping with the war are contained in this production. I've attached a link to a short trailer on you tube...

A MUST for all WW1 buffs!

p.s. unlike the trailer, the commentary on the version I watched was not in English....

regards

Tom