Unixman Posted 30 January , 2012 Share Posted 30 January , 2012 I lost it in pretty much the last scene when he emerged from the tunnel into a devastated landscape to be told by two Germans that the war was over ... Just that on 11 Nov the Allies were miles from the old trenches ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 30 January , 2012 Share Posted 30 January , 2012 They do seem to have fiddled with the reality in the second half of the war more than the first. I haven't read the book, but I assume if he was found by a German officer he then became a POW, which is not so dramatic on the screen. Oh, well. I notice that on a couple of interviews on the interweb-thingumibob that "they consulted experts to create their own set of Regimental insignia so that it didn't portray a particular unit" - so it must have just accidentally ended up as the Northamptonshire Regiment T.F. badge.... Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fleabane Posted 30 January , 2012 Share Posted 30 January , 2012 Can anyone tell me the significance of the blue diamond shaped patches on the shoulders and back of the uniform jackets many of the men were wearing? I assume it is to signify the division or company that the men belonged to? If so, do they relate to a real division or are they entirely fictional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 30 January , 2012 Share Posted 30 January , 2012 I suspect that they were fictional. Judging from the angle that the Hawthorne Ridge explosion went up in relation to their trench (acutely to their right), they were probably in front of Serre, so Division wise that was the area of operations for 31st and 48th Division. The 48th Division's patch was a white diamond, similar to the blue diamond worn in the drama, but again, I believe the patches to be fictitious. Certainly, none of the Northamptons were in that neck of the woods on the 1st July! Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 30 January , 2012 Share Posted 30 January , 2012 Weren't the patches used to allow FOOs to see the advancing infantrymen, so that the barrage would be directed more safely by the avoidance of "shorts" ? Another observation - more in the nature of a question - there was no concession to anti flash.....wasn't it standard practice to conceal infantrymen by use of canvass covering on the hats ? Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_armstrong Posted 30 January , 2012 Share Posted 30 January , 2012 Also by that stage of the war wouldn't the officers go into action with rifles and wearing OR tunics? Or was that later? I too wondered about his lack of promotion, despite seemingly being highly regarded. I did enjoy it though. Beautifully shot. In contrast to others I rather liked the quiet understated acting. There's too much shouting and hamming on the telly as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geraint Posted 30 January , 2012 Share Posted 30 January , 2012 Weren't the patches used to allow FOOs to see the advancing infantrymen, so that the barrage would be directed more safely by the avoidance of "shorts" ? Phil (PJA) They were far larger, placed on the back only or on backpacks , and were triangular pieces of tin for reflection. Those in Birdsong were little bits of cloth; badly sewn on the back and on the upper arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 30 January , 2012 Share Posted 30 January , 2012 Generally enjoyed this one and made allowances in the interets of the drama but Wraysford's less is more acting eventually got a bit of a joke in our house. With all the military consultants did Auchonvilliers have to appear on a caption and why not get the right reference to the Ancre rather than calling it the Somme - I suppose Faulks may have made these errors in the book - will have to look - but they could have been corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 30 January , 2012 Share Posted 30 January , 2012 They were far larger, placed on the back only or on backpacks , and were triangular pieces of tin for reflection. I saw several men wearing just such pieces of metal on their backs ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 30 January , 2012 Share Posted 30 January , 2012 With all the military consultants did Auchonvilliers have to appear on a caption ... That spelling appeared on a caption at one point — the correct spelling is Auchonvillers ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 30 January , 2012 Share Posted 30 January , 2012 That spelling appeared on a caption at one point the correct spelling is Auchonvillers ... Yes, that was precisely my point - hence my reference to Faulks' errors - but I suppose I should have "spelled" it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 The usual mish-mash of comments over on IMDB Several members of that forum have observed that the Armistice seemed to have occurred in summer rather than in November and that the Somme was characterised for chalk, rather than mud. I was intrigued by Firebrace's hat, with "wings" that presumably came down over his ears and were buttoned (tied?) together. Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockdoc Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 Ruth read the book some time ago and enjoyed it but I hadn't. We watched about the first hour of the first episode last night and were both very disappointed. She felt the constant flashbacks disrupted the story and we both felt that the ages of the characters was just wrong. The cuckolded husband looked about 35 when I would have expected a successful businessman in that era to be considerably older. His wife looked about 25 yet is supposed to have a 16yo daughter, which is more likely to put her into her mid-thirties. I wasn't impressed by the "acting" of the lead, either. He seemed to have only two modes: a vacant stare or a sneer. More to the point, which company of the time would have entrusted a long-term foreign assignment to a 20yo youth? I left school in 1970, at 18, yet my company wouldn't have entertained sending me out on my own for several years after I graduated because I wouldn't have sufficient experience to guarantee that I couldn't embarrass them. As to the scenes underground, considering how well sounds carry, I was astonished by the stampeding, yelling and screaming they indulged in. No thumbs up from this part of Derby. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 Quite enjoyed the first episode, despite the artistic licence and inacuracies, although I thought that the ADS shown at the end was apparently about the size of Hyde Park....where did all the casualties, several thousand by the look of it, come from with no major attack taking place? Second episode I just watched with my mouth open in astonishment, after the first sharp intake of breath, and refrained from comment as the Memsahib was enjoying it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevmc Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 1. His wife looked about 25 yet is supposed to have a 16yo daughter, which is more likely to put her into her mid-thirties. 2. I wasn't impressed by the "acting" of the lead, either. He seemed to have only two modes: a vacant stare or a sneer. 3. As to the scenes underground, considering how well sounds carry, I was astonished by the stampeding, yelling and screaming they indulged in. 4. which company of the time would have entrusted a long-term foreign assignment to a 20yo youth? Keith 1. The 16 year old girl was not her birth daughter. In the book the wife was aged 29 years when the affair occurred. 2. Presumably he was Directed to portay the character in this way. 3. I don't recall it being shown like that. In all the scenes in the tunnel they kept saying to keep quiet and emphasised that a few times. After the explosion I doubt whether hearing anyone move was relevant. 4. That is how the book was written. The TV programme would no doubt have received criticism if that had been changed as it was integral to the story. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin kenf48 Posted 31 January , 2012 Admin Share Posted 31 January , 2012 They were far larger, placed on the back only or on backpacks , and were triangular pieces of tin for reflection. Those in Birdsong were little bits of cloth; badly sewn on the back and on the upper arm. Clearly you were not watching closely! In the scene where the doubting junior officer and the restrained (but now sharing the doubts, in spite of the pep talk by the mounted senior officer behind the lines) Company Commander were about to go 'over the top' (spare me!) they were wearing pieces of tin on their haversacks. The reason I was watching closely is that I'd turned on the subtitles which provided their usual amusement and entertainment unlike the slow and tedious content. Mind you I thought Clemence's scar was very well done, not apparently disfiguring but following the tracks of her tears having given up on what was essentially a piece of rough trade. As for the film itself I stayed with it to the bitter end out of a sense of duty though was reduced to spot the cliche by the dramatic, and of course entirely unbelievable ending ('He Croaks') and the bespectacled German (looking like something out of an early Star Wars). Had it been a book I would have put it in the bin long before chapter 2 - come to think about it that's exactly what I did and now I learn it's an A level text I understand why. Incidentally I think there were Regiments who wore a patch on their back, I recall one turned up on the GWF recently. Ken btw what was that bit about where our hero survives (yet again) shoots two Germans with his pistol as he's crossing a brook and is immediately met by a sentry who tells him the men are 'in the woods'... and folk have the nerve to knock Spielberg! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geraint Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 Clearly you were not watching closely! Ken btw what was that bit about where our hero survives (yet again) shoots two Germans with his pistol as he's crossing a brook and is immediately met by a sentry who tells him the men are 'in the woods'... and folk have the nerve to knock Spielberg! Dammit! Caught! And I thought my nodding off conveyed a sense of agreement and positivity! It's an English A level set book now is it? I did (was going to say "studied") Sons and Lovers. Glad to see that standards haven't fallen - both are long and tedious and difficult to understand as to why they were written. That's it. Literary criticism over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Michelle Young Posted 31 January , 2012 Admin Share Posted 31 January , 2012 Wasn't that impressed with episode 2 either, it was OK and a good drama but they really messed the book which was sketchy on historical accuracy in the first place around a lot. I was disappointed they didn't use the late 1970s stuff as well Michelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCudden Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 Having read all the (mostly positive) comments about this BBC adaptation, I am happy to conclude that the problem is probably with me rather than the programme. I found it rushed, thin, and at times gratuitous. I am certain that the makers of this drama had access to expert advice from very knowledgable Great War experts and this shows in much of the programme. The uniforms were mostly right, the locations looked good too (very chalky) and the characters weree mostly ok. What irritates me is that someone clearly decided to over-rule the experts for the sake of budget or to reinforce cultural and historical stereotypes. Who decided that in this version, the war should end in summertime? Were there tunnellers preparing to detonate mines in the final day or two of the war (I thought it was a very fluid and mobile phase)? Please let me know if there were. The war scenes gave me no sense of time passing though clearly two and a half years of war was shown (starting with the summer of 1916 and ending in November(!)1918. I genuinely thought all the war scenes were set during the summer of 1916 until the hero fell down the magic rabbit hole and came out after the war had ended! Alec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulgranger Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 The programme makers may have got carried away with the dichotomoy of lovely sunny weather/death and destruction, as opposed to the usual depiction of mud and unrelenting rain, but the hero grovelling about in a mine as the war ends, is very much to do with the book, and is an aspect of the novel I found difficult to accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 Alec (Post 144) the phenomenon is known as a Wormhole and can distort space/time as you describe the botoxed one apparently going into the tunnels in the year 1916 then appearing in 1918 to be hugged by a German (in a manly way) whilst the weather and terrain appear to have remained the same despite the passing of time. I think this somewhat simplistic explanation may help you and others understand this event:- “In physics, a wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that would be, fundamentally, a "shortcut" through spacetime. For a simple visual explanation of a wormhole, consider spacetime visualized as a two-dimensional (2D) surface. If this surface is folded along a third dimension, it allows one to picture a wormhole "bridge". (Please note, though, that this is merely a visualization displayed to convey an essentially unvisualisable structure existing in 4 or more dimensions. The parts of the wormhole could be higher-dimensional analogues for the parts of the curved 2D surface; for example, instead of mouths which are circular holes in a 2D plane, a real wormhole's mouths could be spheres in 3D space.) A wormhole is, in theory, much like a tunnel with two ends each in separate points in spacetime.” There that was simple wasn’t it now all we have to do is find a reason for the big lips Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevmc Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 ....... all we have to do is find a reason for the big lips Norman Looking at "images" on Google the actor has always had lips as they now appear. Little he can do about that. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawley Jockey Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 Having read the book a few years ago it became my first e-book on my Kindle, I enjoyed the book that much. Now having watched both episodes on the Beeb all I can say is allowing for slight inaccuraces I really enjoyed the TV adaptation and will probably purchase the DVD when/if released. Enough said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manicminer Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 I've read the book and i've now watched the dramatisation. What people need to realise is that it was just a dramatisation of a fictional novel. I can say I enjoyed both but, as with all screen adaptations, much of the power of the written word is inevitably lost. What is obvious to anyone who has read the book - Sebastian Faulks certainly did his research! What I am pleased with is the fact the the film has made a wider audience aware of the Tunnellers and their efforts in the Great War. For that alone it has been a good thing. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFayers Posted 31 January , 2012 Share Posted 31 January , 2012 Several members of that forum have observed that the Armistice seemed to have occurred in summer rather than in November and that the Somme was characterised for chalk, rather than mud. I'll admit my knowledge of Somme geology isn't great (give me UK or North Sea geology any day!), but I always understood the bedrock over which the attack took place on the 1st July 1916, at least for the most part, is chalk / limestone? Personally I thought the terrain as it was portrayed did look 'right' for this area. As I mentioned previously, the thing that did look odd to me was the 'moonscape' of no-man's land in the summer of 1916 - I'd have expected it to be, well, more 'grassy'! The other thing that was missing in the scenes in the days in the lead-up to the 1st July, at least until the one in the frontline trench when the troops were about to go 'over the top', was the complete lack of sounds of artillery fire! I can't quite remember if in the book Wraysford's 'miraculous' (and, of course, rather unlikely) escape at the end was meant to be at the time of the Armistice - I always thought he emerged in a German frontline trench after the British line went forward during the Battle of Amiens? (Probably just my rubbish memory!) Cheers Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now