War Horse

[IanA]

As a retired teacher trainer, I'm not sure though that I can accept, without question, your argument that "children's books with an averred historical setting, ought to be as concerned with getting it's facts right as a book for an adult audience." I'm not even sure that your basic premise is sound for different ability groups within the same age bracket. Educators have to "know" their audience and pitch their learning sessions appropriately. What will suit one age group may well not (I'm almost tempted to say "will not") suit another. In the same way, what works with one group might not work with another despite the fact that they are of the same age. In other words, a teacher, immaterial of the level he / she is operating at must assess the "entering behaviour" of the learning group and pitch his / her teaching appropriately.

Harry

As a retired teacher of nearly forty years' experience, I beg to differ. You are confusing your 'method of presentation' with 'content' and this will not do. Any teacher worth his or her salt will naturally tailor the subject matter to the faces in front of him/ her but I can't see the benefit of suggesting that Bach was English; that magnesium is heavier than lead or that Switzerland is a small peninsular in the South Atlantic.

Facts are chiels that winna ding.

[truthergw]

Oops !

Thanks George for putting me right. It isn't the first time I've been accused of spouting rubbish and I'm pretty sure it wont be the last.

My posting was based on the fact that "War Horse" seems to have been dismissed by some simply on the grounds that it's a Spielberg film. I'm not entirely sure what it is they have against the man but it would appear that, for them, nothing he does is of any real value.

I agree that from a historical perspective "War Horse" can be criticised for exaggerating some of the things that happened during the Great War, but he didn't set out to educate his audiences per se but to entertain them. I feel, having seen the film, that he did a hell of a good job. I really enjoyed it despite the "exaggerations" some have already drawn attention to. For example, the attack by cavalry on a wooded area (High Wood ?) where the German machine guns were shoulder to shoulder. Mind you, I wouldn't mind betting that that's the way it would have seemed to those attacking with lances poised and swords drawn.

As a retired teacher trainer, I'm not sure though that I can accept, without question, your argument that "children's books with an averred historical setting, ought to be as concerned with getting it's facts right as a book for an adult audience." I'm not even sure that your basic premise is sound for different ability groups within the same age bracket. Educators have to "know" their audience and pitch their learning sessions appropriately. What will suit one age group may well not (I'm almost tempted to say "will not") suit another. In the same way, what works with one group might not work with another despite the fact that they are of the same age. In other words, a teacher, immaterial of the level he / she is operating at must assess the "entering behaviour" of the learning group and pitch his / her teaching appropriately.

The first and most difficult task a teacher has to overcome is the need to gain the interest of those he / she teaches. If that involves the exaggeration of events so be it. The drama and horror of that cavalry charge shown in the film will stick in the minds of children, raise their levels of interest and perhaps even make them eager to continue the learning process in the future.

Learning groups George have one characteristic you can bet on : they are all different. That's what makes teaching a demanding and rewarding occupation. One can and needs to generalise at times but one thing is certain : children need to be treated differently to adults. What will work with adults will probably (almost certainly) not work with children. If that means using the "Spielberg approach".......so be it.

Harry

Very interesting, Harry. Can you indicate when it is permissable or even required to teach material that is contrary to the facts and perhaps explain for me why that would be preferable to teaching learners, regardless of age, the truth?

[keithfazzani]

Perhaps modern teaching methods go a long way to explaining this: Ignorance of WW1 facts

[Alan Tucker]

Excellent film, which I saw today, based on an excellent book. Not seen the play. Slightly disappointing at the end compared to the book - after the wire scene. Also makes you proud to be a descendant of Devonians. Whereas Downton's inaccuracies were infuriating and many were basic I can forgive Speilberg and Co for those in War Horse.

[Beau Geste]

As a retired teacher of nearly forty years' experience, I beg to differ.

/quote]

Hello Ian,

Good, but what don't you agree with ? We seem to be saying the same thing, that the learning experience needs to be tailored to the group you have in front of you. If you accept the fact that groups differ, some would say no two groups are the same, it stands to reason that the material you use must be suitable to the interests and abilities of the kids you're teaching. Bore them with material that is too demanding or too demeaning and you'll lose them. Interest them, catch their imagination, make them want to know more about the topic your're covering and you're quids in. It's as easy or as difficult as that.

In other words, TAILOR the material to their interest and ability levels and you just might ignite a flame that will lead them to something really worthwhile. Pitch the material too high or erase some of the "really interesting" stuff ( because it's not quite historically accurate) and you'll lose them.

You should know this if you've taught fopr 40 years. Generate interest and you promote learning. How you do that is up to you but the age and ability of the group should signpost the way.

I don't know what "facts are chiefs that winna ding" means but the same to you

Harry

[delta]

Have just returned from seeing the film; it was entertaining and the family enjoyed it

Overall the film was well acted and beautifully photographed. Being based on a piece of fiction, I was not expecting the film to be wholly accurate regarding the military dress, equipment or tactics. Such "failings" no more spoiled the film than the fact that the the farm scenes were set on Dartmoor and the local village scenes were clearly set in Castle Combe (a mere distance of 119 miles).

[George Armstrong Custer]

erase some of the "really interesting" stuff ( because it's not quite historically accurate) and you'll lose them.

I disagree with almost everything you've said in your last two posts, Harry. But in particular, perhaps you can tell us what you mean by 'not quite historically accurate'? Something is either historically accurate or it is not. The deliberate blurring of the two is a lamentable aspect of what some individuals are prepared to pass off as the teaching of history today.

The point you entirely miss is that a skilled history teacher will make the historically accurate become what you call 'the really interesting stuff.'

You should know this, I should have thought, given that you feel qualified enough to have just patronised a teacher of forty years experience.

George

[truthergw]

As a retired teacher of nearly forty years' experience, I beg to differ.

/quote]

Hello Ian,

Good, but what don't you agree with ? We seem to be saying the same thing, that the learning experience needs to be tailored to the group you have in front of you. If you accept the fact that groups differ, some would say no two groups are the same, it stands to reason that the material you use must be suitable to the interests and abilities of the kids you're teaching. Bore them with material that is too demanding or too demeaning and you'll lose them. Interest them, catch their imagination, make them want to know more about the topic your're covering and you're quids in. It's as easy or as difficult as that.

In other words, TAILOR the material to their interest and ability levels and you just might ignite a flame that will lead them to something really worthwhile. Pitch the material too high or erase some of the "really interesting" stuff ( because it's not quite historically accurate) and you'll lose them.

You should know this if you've taught fopr 40 years. Generate interest and you promote learning. How you do that is up to you but the age and ability of the group should signpost the way.

I don't know what "facts are chiefs that winna ding" means but the same to you

Harry

Why should the truth be boring and only the historically inaccurate be interesting? If we accept your notion of tailoring the information to the group being taught, that would eradicate anything like a curriculum. No two classes ever being taught the same thing. There could be no such thing as a text book. Now a statement of fact is either true or false ( facts are chiels that winna ding. Robert Burns). If you are offering information that is false then you are not teaching, you are misleading.

[Beau Geste]

Very interesting, Harry. Can you indicate when it is permissable or even required to teach material that is contrary to the facts and perhaps explain for me why that would be preferable to teaching learners, regardless of age, the truth?

Hello Truth,

I think I've already done that in #100.

Harry

[IanA]

I don't know what "facts are chiefs that winna ding" means but the same to you

Harry

Chiels, Harry, chiels. It translates (losing much in the translation) something like: facts are folk that can't be knocked down.

"As a retired teacher trainer, I'm not sure though that I can accept, without question, your argument that "children's books with an averred historical setting, ought to be as concerned with getting it's facts right as a book for an adult audience."" - This is where we differ. In this statement you appear to be saying that factual accuracy is subservient to style of presentation. I maintain that it is possible to teach effectively, to a variety of ability/ age ranges, while preserving the true facts.

[Steven Broomfield]

Harry - as with Ian, Tom and George, I read your post as implying it was acceptable to teach different ability levels different facts, If I misread that I apologise, but as a non-educator, I do find that an odd assertion to make.

As to why some of us dislike Spielberg's work, well it's simple. I dislike seeinf movies which pound me into submission by excessive use of sound, a script which is effectively layer upon layer of saccharine, and a pre-supposition that I can't make my mind up. However, as the reviews I posted effectively state, you go to a Spielberg movie knowing what to accept. I suppose I dislike leaving my critical facilities at the door for two and a half hours.

The greatest film set in war is (for my money) Renoir's La Grande Illusion; it contains almost no "action" and has a cast of dozens. The music is unobtrusive enough to be unobtrusive. It's in black and white with no CGI and no SFX.

What it does have is actors acting. And an ending which is as open and questioning as any in a film ever made.

I suspect the audience that troubled to read the sub titles (or learn the French) would learn more about war, about human nature and more about (dare I say) movie making from that one movie than half a lifetime spent watching Spielberg.

But each to his own, as they say.

[truthergw]

Hello Truth,

I think I've already done that in #100.

Harry

You weren't a dancing teacher by any chance?

[Beau Geste]

Chiels, Harry, chiels. It translates (losing much in the translation) something like: facts are folk that can't be knocked down.

"As a retired teacher trainer, I'm not sure though that I can accept, without question, your argument that "children's books with an averred historical setting, ought to be as concerned with getting it's facts right as a book for an adult audience."" - This is where we differ. In this statement you appear to be saying that factual accuracy is subservient to style of presentation. I maintain that it is possible to teach effectively, to a variety of ability/ age ranges, while preserving the true facts.

Thank you Ian for the explanation. I really hadn't come across it before.

Geoge Custer has suggested that I "patronised you". I hope you don't think that, it certainly wasn't what I meant to do. What we (not just you and I but others as well) seem to have missed here is the context in which I suggested that accuracy might not be as important as generating interest. It came from a posting by SeaJane (# 76) where she was talking about childrens books. The question of historical accuracy was raised and I suggested that for kids of the age she was talking about ( children's books) it wasn't necessaily the most important factor. I wasn't talking about "O" level or "A" level students just kids.

The point I was trying hard to make was that the materials used to teach children should be capable of generating interest in the subject even at the expense of some historical accuracy.

The background to all this is, of course "War Horse" and in particular the attack by cavalry on the wood. I'm sure that kids would respond to that scene in a positive way. In other words, it would generate the sort of interest I'm talking about. Now I believe that that is important. Whether it's as important (at that age remember) as historical fact is something one must decide for themselves.

Harry

[alex falbo]

Perhaps modern teaching methods go a long way to explaining this: Ignorance of WW1 facts

Good Lord that is thoroughly depressing....

Particularly for Great Britain as the War is such a watershed in every aspect of its modern history.

Not much better over here I'm afraid.

[IanA]

Thank you Ian for the explanation. I really hadn't come across it before.

Geoge Custer has suggested that I "patronised you". I hope you don't think that, it certainly wasn't what I meant to do. What we (not just you and I but others as well) seem to have missed here is the context in which I suggested that accuracy might not be as important as generating interest. It came from a posting by SeaJane (# 76) where she was talking about childrens books. The question of historical accuracy was raised and I suggested that for kids of the age she was talking about ( children's books) it wasn't necessaily the most important factor. I wasn't talking about "O" level or "A" level students just kids.

The point I was trying hard to make was that the materials used to teach children should be capable of generating interest in the subject even at the expense of some historical accuracy.

Harry

You should read more Robert Burns.

I think that George may have taken your comment "You should know this if you've taught fopr 40 years." as patronising. I still maintain that I have never had to compromise any "historical accuracy" to engage with children and I fully endorse the comments made by SeaJane.

[Beau Geste]

Harry - as with Ian, Tom and George, I read your post as implying it was acceptable to teach different ability levels different facts, If I misread that I apologise, but as a non-educator, I do find that an odd assertion to make.

Thank you Steven,

I obviously didn't spell it out clearly enough. Ian also thought I was referring to "different ability levels" but my comments were in direct response to the point SeaJane made in her posting #76 where she was referring specifically to "children's books".

Harry.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I obviously didn't spell it out clearly enough. Ian also thought I was referring to "different ability levels" but my comments were in direct response to the point SeaJane made in her posting #76 where she was referring specifically to "children's books".

No, Harry, they weren't. I don't know if you were a dancing teacher as Tom suggested, but you can certainly duck and dive when anyone attempts to pin you down. Ian was responding directly to your post which you addressed directly to me. In that post you'd moved on from childrens books per se to my basic premise about the importance of the verity of historical facts no matter what age the target audience - you wrote to me that "I'm not even sure that your basic premise is sound for different ability groups within the same age bracket. Educators have to "know" their audience and pitch their learning sessions appropriately." None of which justifies using what you call "the not quite historically accurate" in place of the historically accurate, or the blurring of fact and fiction so that the pupil cannot tell one from the other.

Nor have you addressed the issue of your statement in your later post to Ian to the effect that "erase some of the "really interesting" stuff ( because it's not quite historically accurate) and you'll lose them." In response I noted that "The point you entirely miss is that a skilled history teacher will make the historically accurate become what you call 'the really interesting stuff.' " And as Tom asked you directly: "Why should the truth be boring and only the historically inaccurate be interesting?" All you've responded with is "I think I've already done that in #100." I must be missing something - perhaps you can point me to which part of your post #100 explains why it is possible to make the "not quite historically accurate" interesting but not, apparently, to do the same with the historically accurate?

Curious George

[Beau Geste]

Why should the truth be boring and only the historically inaccurate be interesting? If we accept your notion of tailoring the information to the group being taught, that would eradicate anything like a curriculum. No two classes ever being taught the same thing. There could be no such thing as a text book. Now a statement of fact is either true or false ( facts are chiels that winna ding. Robert Burns). If you are offering information that is false then you are not teaching, you are misleading.

If I've given the impression that the truth is boring then I'm surprised. That isn't at all what I meant and I think you know that. My involvement on this thread is, in part , in response to SeaJane's posting about children's books (#76). George argued that "children's mooks with an averred historical setting ought to be as concerned with getting the facts right as a book for adult audiences" I said that I didn't necessarily agree, that children "need to be treated differently to adults". In other words, my arguments have attempted to focus on very young learners but gradually this has widened as people have related it to their own teaching groups etc.and in some cases misinterpreted what I've said

When I suggested that the available material should be tailored, I was again referring to the youngest groups. I wasn't suggesting that the "truth is boring" I was simply suggesting that scenes like the cavalry attack on the wood in War Horse would captivate the minds of young kids immaterial as to whether or not it actually happened exactly like that.

Harry

[keithfazzani]

I think that post #76 was saying, and I may be wrong, that if you choose to intimate that things are factual even in a children's book then the facts need to be correct. There is a clear difference between fact and fiction. Fiction may open doors to facts for both children and adults but to portray fiction as fact must always be wrong. In my school days Shakespeare was a core part of our education as was history. No teacher ever pretended that Shakespeare was history, indeed both history and English teachers went out of their way to differentiate the two, that is fact from fiction. The problem with Warhorse and I suspect many similar films, books and TV programmes is that many people assume that they are factual and some people promote them as factual when what they are is a jolly good yarn. This problem is compounded, when as it would seem, they are cited by educationalists as a good basis for developing a child's interest in a subject. I don't think anyone who taught me Shakespeare's Julius Caesar did so to develop my interest in Roman History, or even assumed that it could be used as such. It is the blurring of what used to be the normal and accepted boundary between fact and fiction that is concerning.

[spconnolly007]

Just watched it with the family, and they all loved it. Found myself trying to pick holes in it for several reasons but you have to hand it to Spielberg, he certainly knows how to warm the heart strings. Call me a sentimental fool, and I will probably have to agree with you. To be quite honest, the war plays second fiddle to Joey's journey, and not having read the book, Im not sure if this was the authors intension. What is certain, is that Spielberg had us all(including myself, most of the time)in the palm of his hand, in what is a feel good Black Beauty come Lassie type tale set around the Great War. Any die hard, sticklers for detail, dont bother, you'll just find another reason to beat the director with a big stick, but on the other hand, if you have young teenage children and a wife that cries at the drop of a hat, let alone at a barbed wire entangled thoroughbred, you could go and watch a lot worse. Sean

[phil andrade]

This evening I saw the film.

If you expect an accurate depiction of the Great War, you'll be upset.

If you're prepared to relax and enjoy spectacle and indulge your emotions, you'll be pleased.

Phil (PJA)

[Black Maria]

I thoroughly enjoyed the film,especially the cavalry charge against the wood which was a great piece of cinema and as this was a Hollywood film it was nice to hear a few different English accents,they even had a geordie one(subtitles needed for Americans i presume pet).

[phil andrade]

Yes, that cavalry charge scene was hair raising : brilliant as a piece of cinema.

Any anorak will disdain it as absurd.

All honour to Spielberg for attempting to do justice to the Great War.

Allow the technical flaws to pass you by, and accept the movie for what it purports to be.

A lovely film.

Phil (PJA)

[Steven Broomfield]

The point I was trying hard to make was that the materials used to teach children should be capable of generating interest in the subject even at the expense of some historical accuracy.

Harry

I susepct the sound I can hear in my ears is that of my old history teachers, particularly George Barlow, spinning in their graves. I have to say I find that statement utterly unbelievable from a teacher.

Presumably it's OK for maths teachers to teach kids that 2 + 2 = 5 if it gets them paying attention. It would get them paying attention: probably at watching the clot with the chalk who doesn't know his subject.

Unbelievable.

[alex falbo]

I thoroughly enjoyed the film,especially the cavalry charge against the wood which was a great piece of cinema and as this was a Hollywood film it was nice to hear a few different English accents,they even had a geordie one(subtitles needed for Americans i presume pet).

A scene I thought particularly effective. Even with the excessive MG's. I saw that as more or less an artistic cultural statement for the succession of a new age of war. The piercing sound of the sabre's cutting down the encamped Germans contrasted fiercely with the rumble of the charging steeds. Sound is 60% of War film's experience to me.

However I can't imagine the carnage from Warhorse's combat sequences if Spielberg had used his SPR technique for realism. Passchendaele kind of gave us a window to that brutality.