War Horse

[rumplestiltskin]

I enjoyed it good cinematography, it was not about historical accuracy for me this time just entertainment to get away from the drip drip of miserable newsIf i want historical accuracy i come here and read.

Regards Terry.

[NigelS]

I enjoyed it good cinematography.

Apparently, rarely nowadays for a 'Holywood' type movie, digital recording was spurned in favour of film; I wonder if this might be the last major 'film' to use that technology?. One radio reviewer reckoned that he hadn't seen a film with such lighting since 'Gone with the Wind'

Yet another review in today's Daily Telegraph 'Review' section by Robbie Collins concludes with: 'There's not quite something for everyone here, but the cynics can trot on: there's something for everyone else.'

I should add, that I've yet to see it so can't make any comment.

NigelS

[bswan]

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.

Some of what passed as teaching at my old grammar school (ah yes, the good old days) seemed to be based on the teaching philosophy of Dickens Mr Gradgrind. In your words Steve the quality of the teaching and the learning experience was indeed 'unelievable' in its failure to engage and inspire the so-called brighter kids who had passed their 11+.

I'm not sure however if many of my classmates learned anything although I'm sure the teachers got the 'facts' right. Whether these added up to historical truths is another matter.

Billy

[Beau Geste]

Some of what passed as teaching at my old grammar school (ah yes, the good old days) seemed to be based on the teaching philosophy of Dickens Mr Gradgrind. In your words Steve the quality of the teaching and the learning experience was indeed 'unelievable' in its failure to engage and inspire the so-called brighter kids who had passed their 11+.

I'm not sure however if many of my classmates learned anything although I'm sure the teachers got the 'facts' right. Whether these added up to historical truths is another matter.

Billy

Hello Billy,

I had decided not to bother adding any more posts to this thread but yours, struck an important chord. My involvement on this thread really began as a response to SeaJane's posting number #76 when I suggested that historical accuracy was not that important in "children's books". I didn't feel that there was any need to labour the point, after all what would a 5 or 6 year old gain (except raising their interest levels) in rectifying inaccurate detail like the scene in War Horse when a cavalry charge was confronted by shoulder to shoulder machine guns. ?

What I did badly though in previous posts was to address Custer's point that I said: "...I'm not even sure that I agree that your basic premise is sound for different ability groups within the same age bracket". I admit that I was at fault in this respect and the only excuse I can give is that I felt pressured by what came afterwards.

Anyway, it is my belief that the interest of learners has to be achieved before learning takes place. No teacher, whatever level he's operating in has a right to expect a positive response from the people he's teaching. It's this that makes teaching a hghly rewarding if not an extremely demanding occupation. It would be great if all learning groups in the 'O' and 'A' level age groups were the same. In that case it would be possible to argue that the same pressures on teachers and the same demands on students were the same. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. different atitudes to learning ( and more importantly perhaps, different ability levels) exist. Some teachers "get it easy". Their learners will almost succeed "despite them". No doubt I've trod on a few toes here. Others though in city centre schools for example (and I don't mean to disparage anyone by saying this) face a different challenge and if they succeed it will be very much a case not of "despite them" but "bcause of the hard work and dedication the teachers put in day to day"

Please don't think I'm knocking he teachers who are doing a fine job in our six form colleges or grammar schools, I'm not. But the challenges they face are different and for the majority of teachers it's a case of breaking down barriers and trying to motivate people who don't particularly want to learn. In doing this I doubt very much if their primary or even their secondary concern is historical accuracy.

Forgive me Steven Broomfield for referring here to your last posting but I wouldn't mind betting that George Barlow could relate to what I've said.

That's my last word on the subject.

Harry

[truthergw]

Some of what passed as teaching at my old grammar school (ah yes, the good old days) seemed to be based on the teaching philosophy of Dickens Mr Gradgrind. In your words Steve the quality of the teaching and the learning experience was indeed 'unelievable' in its failure to engage and inspire the so-called brighter kids who had passed their 11+.

I'm not sure however if many of my classmates learned anything although I'm sure the teachers got the 'facts' right. Whether these added up to historical truths is another matter.

Billy

I agree with you completely. History is more than a collection of facts. These facts need to be interpreted. Once that has been done, ideally, the history should be presented in a way that engages the learners. None of that however is a licence to ignore facts or falsify them. That is no longer history, it is propaganda. There have always been good teachers and bad. I expect that despite ongoing attempts, that will be true for some time to come. The good teachers will succeed in passing on their knowledge whatever the content of the lessons may be. I maintain that that content should be a true and comprehensive interpretation of the historical facts as we know them. I suspect that the passing off of movies or TV programmes as history is the refuge of the bad teacher.

[Chris_Baker]

... which is exactly what we have seen with Blackadder. How long before we hear, from some teacher or guide on a battlefield tour for school pupils, some reference to this film, passing it on as though it were fact?

[Joe Sweeney]

[phil andrade]

Spielberg seemed to be imparting a medieval aspect to some of the scenes of horses puling those huge guns through the mud. It's hard to imagine such monsters being used barely more than a lifetime ago. I felt as if I was watching a scene from the seige of Harfleur or Constantinople. He makes a wonderful impact that way : sound, colour and caricature, whether depicting a gruesome battlefield or the social hierarchies of English rural life a century ago.

The more I think about it, the less the inaccuracies matter, and the more the strong points of the film shine through.

Phil (PJA)

[Steven Broomfield]

Forgive me Steven Broomfield for referring here to your last posting but I wouldn't mind betting that George Barlow could relate to what I've said.

Harry

Harry, I'm afraid I've lost track of what you're saying, to be honest, and whilst I would concur that Mr Barlow (who, I suspect, you never met) would agree about getting and holding a pupil's interest, if I infer from this that you also believe he would stoop to falsifying facts to get that interest I can only say it is an insult to one of the finest teachers (and nicest men) who ever drew breath.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Well I'm sorry to hear that Billy_s went to a school where the standard of teaching failed to inspire him. The uninsiprational teaching of history apparently experienced by Billy_s is not, however, a valid argument in vindication of Harry's position that "the materials used to teach children should be capable of generating interest in the subject even at the expense of some historical accuracy," or his warning that if we " erase some of the "really interesting" stuff ( because it's not quite historically accurate)" you won't be able to retain children's interest sufficiently to educate them in history. Harry's approach is one that I find pernicious to concepts of the teaching of history, even if his responses to those querying it have been entertaining. The history teacher's job is to make the facts come alive and interesting, not to ditch these in favour of the easy option of running an episode of Blackadder, which Chris has mentioned, or a DVD of War Horse when they become available. Members of this forum ought to be more aware than anyone what a goldmine of stories make up the history of the Great War. These range from the panoramic events on the world stage, the fall of Kings and Empires, to the intimate lives, loves and losses of ordinary individuals caught up in the sweep of history. The idea that we somehow need the Spielbergisation of a work of fiction to bring a tear to the eye or a lump to the throat is specious - the stories of real people told in Richard van Emden's The Quick and the Dead, for example, provide material for that - all the more moving, I'd suggest, in that we know it actually happened and much of it is related by those affected.

But that the 'just make it up if it makes it entertaining' line is alive and well in the teaching of history in some schools is illustrated by the following:

The illustration you see above appears on a GCSE Revision Website at www.johndclare.net. In a section on 'Views on Haig', it is shown above the following caption:

"This poster shows a drawing of Haig, with the words: 'Your Country Needs Me… like a hole in the head – which is what most of you are going to get'. It is taken from the book General Haig's Private War."

Well, no it isn't, actually. There has never been a book called 'General Haig's Private War'. But that false attribution for a concocted image does demonstrate how low grade the teaching of history, particularly of the Great War, has become in some UK schools and educational resources. The GCSE Revision site in question is run by John D. Clare, a history teacher who also writes school curriculum text books. In June 2006, on 'The History Teachers' Discussion Forum', Derek Bos, a teacher, posted the following enquiry in respect of this image and the book which it was said to be sourced from:

"Does anyone have details about one of the sources used on the AQA General Haig coursework. There is a poster and the ascription describes it as a poster taken from a book called 'General Haig's Private War'. There are no other details about the author or the date it was published. I know JDC has it on his website but these details are not included. Can anyone please furnish me with these details?"

The answer to this enquiry came from John D. Clare himself, who runs the GCSE Revision site and who is also an Administrator on the History Teachers' Discussion Forum. Here's what he says:

"The answer, I'm afraid, will probably be no. In the end I contacted the board, who told me that they had contacted the author of the coursework and he did not know - he had taken it from a worksheet he had found in some school and now couldn't track back.

I have found no evidence that there has ever been a book called 'General Haig's Private War' OR SIMILAR TITLE.

The source is a nothing source anyway, and I have replaced it in the remodelled coursework I have had OK'd by the moderator.

In such a situation, just make up the provenance to suit the question.

It clearly comes from a satirical source, probably from the 1960s (about the time of Oh What A Lovely War, when Haig's reputation was at its lowest) - that should be enough for the pupils to be able to evaluate the source by Content, Origin and Purpose.

No one at the board is going to dispute whatever you say. "

Well there we have it, then. A discussion between two teachers on how to present material to pupils - and the advice given about attributing bogus source material is this:

"In such a situation, just make up the provenance to suit the question." "No one at the board is going to dispute whatever you say."

If this is a history teacher advising another history teacher, what hope is there of school children being given a factually based perspective of the Great War in those schools needing to raise their standards......And despite this exchange, the illustration with its bogus attribution remains on the GCSE Revision site to this day. How long before 'War Horse' is being shown in schools with the boundaries between fact and fiction as blurred as screenings of 'Blackadder' were?

George

[Steven Broomfield]

I'm really rather glad george Barlow didn't live to see this nonsense. I'm also pleased he never saw teachers acting in such a despicable manner; he gave his life to teaching history. Proper history. He was a life-long socialist (we didn't see eye to eye ), but he was big enough and man enough to teach with little 'spin'.

Facts, as Mr Gradgrind said, facts - but as Mr Barlow showed, facts can be made interesting. It just takes a good teacher.

[squirrel]

Four of us are booked to see this epic tomorrow afternoon at the local Kinema. Two have seen the stage version and admitted to needing to use their handkerchiefs during the performance. Two less likely chaps to have a lachrymatory episode I have not come across before. Perhaps its hard men with soft centres they don't show too often although one of them is reduced to speaking gibberish in the presence of his 18 month old grandaughter and his newly acquired Spaniel puppy.....

Well, I have seen it. The story is sentimental in the extreme and taken to the ultimate extreme by the Director. Historical accuracy? Non existent. I could write copiously on the inaccuracies but shall refrain from doing so - it would need an entire book, not a few notes.

Worth seeing for no nasty or naughty bits and some stunning cinematography? Certainly.

Oh, and the hard men shed a tear again, as did my wife. I refrained from participating in the blubbing going on around me.

[phil andrade]

People want to be entertained, not informed.

Bearing in mind how far Spielberg might have indulged in an orgy of Donkey Walloping and Blackadderism, I feel that he gave the British army of 1914 a good press.

Phil (PJA)

[alex falbo]

... which is exactly what we have seen with Blackadder. How long before we hear, from some teacher or guide on a battlefield tour for school pupils, some reference to this film, passing it on as though it were fact?

Unfortunately it is an association as literally hard to shift as Somme Fall mud.

George, I feel your pain. Quite dismissible stuff given any examination with some depth. I know I;ve told you before but for the benefit of the conversation; At the talk for my WFA East Coast meeting, my presentation was on the Arras Offensive. But I spent the first twenty minutes guiding my audience through the battle of the histories on the BEF and its leadership (along with mention of Blackadder and Attenborough's work) just to have their perspectives and minds open. Truly sad all the muck that needs to be cleared on many counts of lies and spinning's.

In addition, I feel that the showing of films in class is one or a combination of the following reasons...

1. The teacher wants the pupils to sympathize emotionally and they personally recommend the film

2, The teacher does not feel that current generations of students can learn in any way other than through modern visual media presentation

3. The teacher (in some cases) simply needs to cram the course and is unmotivated to properly cover the material.

My favorite history teacher (and teacher in general) was a man who told a narrative. He had plenty of details concerning Thermophile, the sack of Rome, Louis XIV, the Crimea or the Blitz. Really interesting and entertaining real stories woven in the context of a lesson plan designed to teach fact. Some people cannot find history under any circumstances interesting. So why make sh*te up to entertain them? Its what is frustrating in film. History is often more interesting than fiction and the Great War has plenty to lend writers, producers, actors, FX people, etc for an awesome piece.

PJA: I definitely agree with your above. That, more than anything concerning accuracy, had me vigilant. Spielberg made sure he treated the subject with the utmost respect. He is astute enough to see that World War I is still called the Great War in the UK for a reason. I like your earlier comments about the War's Medieval aesthetic portrayed in the film. I think there's much in how fascinating the War looks. Like Chaucer meets H.G. Wells.

[phil andrade]

There was a nice Anglophile aspect to the film, too.

I get the impression that Spielberg is genuinely enamoured of English country scenery, and he certainly turns it to very good account in the film.

Think of how Mel Gibson might have handled this story !

I feet that Spielberg flatters us : the image of the land and the people, the conduct of the soldiers - especially the officers - speaks of admiration and symapthy.

Thank you, Mr Spielberg !

Phil (PJA)

[Steven Broomfield]

People want to be entertained, not informed.

Phil (PJA)

It's shame we now live in a society where the two are mutually exclusive. I suppose Lord Reith must be joining George Barlow in his revolutions.

[salesie]

It's shame we now live in a society where the two are mutually exclusive. I suppose Lord Reith must be joining George Barlow in his revolutions.

Lord Reith, Steven? For someone who regularly extols the virtues of historical fact (and the so-called honour and integrity of days long gone), you don't half lead with your chin sometimes - here's what his own daughter had to say about Saint Reith:

"For all his outward pretence of stern morality, he was in fact a hypocrite, according to his own daughter, Marista Leishman, who has written a book about him. Publicly, she says, he abhorred infidelity; but privately, he enjoyed relationships with a series of malleable young women - and once, while in his 20s, even had an intimate liaison with a man.

Professionally, he was austere; but outside the dour confines of Broadcasting House he was a consummate self-publicist. In an era before tabloid journalism - which, doubtless, he would have affected to loathe - Reith knew how to grab a headline. His stock-in-trade was fomenting shock and outrage. In the prelude to World War II, he brazenly expressed his admiration for Hitler and, later, his detestation of Churchill, whom he numbered in a list of his seven most-hated men.

Meanwhile, his own personality - tyrannical, self-centred and riddled with paradoxes - bore more than a passing resemblance to that of a dictator. 'My father shared many characteristics with Mussolini,' says Marista. 'He was dictatorial, ruthless and exploitative. He could elevate someone or ruin them in seconds, which was terrifying. And you never knew when one of his rages was coming. He was most impatient with those who feared him,' she adds, 'and my poor, gentle mama tried endlessly to please and placate him. So he would rage against her interminably: why had the laundry not starched this cuff? How could she have forgotten to check? 'I was uncomfortable when he was around and he was uncomfortable with me. I had usurped what he took for granted: an inalienable right to be the centre of attention.'"

Full article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-445763/Lord-Reith-The-Hypocrite-built-BBC.html#ixzz1jWOI8NAi

Reith was your typical hypocritical dictator - who thought he had the God given right to impose high moral standards on the masses, but completely ignore them himself (on the quiet, of course). According to historical fact, Reith makes guys like Spielberg seem like alter-boys in comparison.

Cheers-salesie.

[George Armstrong Custer]

What amuses me are those who are popping up on a thread which asked for opinions on War Horse and telling others to forget assessing it as a portrayal of the Great War which, they say, is secondary to appreciating it as a beautifully filmed mawk fest. They do this by using such reductive phrases about those critiquing it as a portrayal of the Great War as 'button counters', even though I see no posts complaining about uniform detail etc. They forget that if it weren't for the Great War aspect, any discussion of this or any other film would be off topic on this forum except in Skindles. Discussing just its entertainment and cinematographic virtues is for an entertainment media or specialist film appreciation forum, as its success as a transfer of a piece of children's literature to film would be for a lit crit forum. Its sole claim to being up for discussion on the main boards of the GWF is its Great War content and how realistic a view of that is imparted to the viewer - not just in appearance, but in terms of a believable story. Which is what I'd expect the membership to turn what specialist knowledge they have upon and critique. How strange, then, that some seem determined to stifle any on topic comment in favour of simply applauding the formulaic Spielberg as a movie maker. Mind you, it seems to be part of a growing acceptance, if not endorsement, of 'dumbing down' in historical approaches which has been becoming more apparent amongst some on the forum of late, what with some of the proposals we've seen for educational presentations to the young on Western Front tours, and some of the ideas put forward on this thread about how teaching history in an entertaining way involves playing fast and loose with the facts.

Salesie, old chum, your discursive quote from an embittered daughter would no doubt be of interest in its proper context - probably in a discussion on the psychology of families. But you fail to tell us where it undermines the committment of the BBC under Reith to inform and entertain. Oh - and what's this snippet about Spielberg you hint at when referring to him as an 'alter-boy'. Has he had a sex change on the quiet?

George

[phil andrade]

It's shame we now live in a society where the two are mutually exclusive. I suppose Lord Reith must be joining George Barlow in his revolutions.

A film that satisfied our demands for accuracy would be very hard to make, and even more difficult to sell, assuming, of course, that financial backing could be obtained in the first place.

It would be fantastic if it could be accomplished.

Any ideas for a theme ?

Phil (PJA)

[truthergw]

There is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation here. The movie may be good or bad. That will be a matter of taste, of which there can be no dispute. There is an argument being made that any film about the Great War is a good thing because it raises awareness of the war. Those who make this proposal also say that inaccuracies do not matter, that the film needs to sacrifice historical accuracy to make it a good movie. If that latter contention is true then the former proposal is false. Any movie which mentions the war is not necessarily a good thing. Awareness of the war must be based on the facts, not on misrepresentation. A view of the war based on misapprehension is worse than no view at all. By all means watch movies and enjoy them as escapist entertainment but please do not pretend that a misguided view of the war based on fallacy and myth is a good thing. Someone who thinks the war was like Blackadder is not in a state of raised awareness, he has been completely misled.

[salesie]

Salesie, old chum, your discursive quote from an embittered daughter would no doubt be of interest in its proper context - probably in a discussion on the psychology of families. But you fail to tell us where it undermines the committment of the BBC under Reith to inform and entertain. Oh - and what's this snippet about Spielgerg you hint at when referring to him as an 'alter-boy'. Has he had a sex change on the quiet?

George

You seem to be implying, George, that Reith's daughter was just an embittered soul per se, and not because of her father's undoubted rank hypocrisy, serial adultery, and other, highly suspect, character flaws? Any evidence that she was thus, and/or that Reith was not a tyrannical, hypocritical, serial adulterer, who should not be held-up by anyone as an emblem of virtue?

As for Reith's total commitment that the BBC should inform and entertain; he was set firm against the on-set of television, so much so that he refused to attend meetings about it. Now, I'm not a broadcasting expert but even I can see how television has greatly helped in entertaining and informing the masses (whether it has done a good job or not is a different, highly subjective, debate). It seems that Reith's commitment to entertain and inform only stretched as far as his own powers/ability to totally control the content (which is, in effect, censorship of the highest order).

I for one, would not give any credence at all to a man who thought that he knew, without a shadow of doubt, what was best for us all - especially when he carried-on in his own private life in a way that he strongly criticised in others (and he severely punished those under his "command" for doing what he did himself on the quiet).

And my comparison with Spielberg, hinting that he's an alter-boy in comparison - plenty has been said in this thread about the lack of historical facts in plenty of movies, and then we have the nonsense of having Reith held up as some kind of Saint who was full of integrity and whose raison detre was to both entertain and inform in a truthful and honest way. That made me laugh out loud - Spielberg et al give us a choice, watch or don't watch, and they don't pretend to be highly moralistic evangelists; they just like to portray schmaltz whenever they can - Reith wanted to control everything we were fed i.e. no TV, no other broadcasting medium other than BBC Radio; Reith wanted to treat us all just like he treated his own family i.e. to be seen and not heard, to be good little listeners and be satisfied with the hypocritical drivel that he saw fit to feed us, to do as he said and not as he did. No wonder Reith was a fan of Hitler's - total control was his thing as well. Not for me, Pal, not for me - if we're going to condemn movies for their lack of historical facts, lets not put forward points that contain the same "flaw".

Cheers-salesie.

[George Armstrong Custer]

As for Reith's total commitment that the BBC should inform and entertain;

No. What I said was " the committment of the BBC under Reith to inform and entertain." There's a subtle but important difference there. You should read the BBC Charter sometime.

I see you maintain that Spielberg is an 'alter-boy'. What's been altered, and did it hurt d'you think?

George

[salesie]

No. What I said was " the committment of the BBC under Reith to inform and entertain." There's a subtle but important difference there. You should read the BBC Charter sometime.

I see you maintain that Spielberg is an 'alter-boy'. What's been altered, and did it hurt d'you think?

George

Doh, been on the thick-pills this morning - only just got it! Could have been worse, could have called him a Transwhatsit (though some may claim that I offend Transwhatsits when implying it)

No subtle difference, George - Reith the man was used as an example of honesty and integrity, not the BBC Charter itself.

Cheers-salesie.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I had every confidence you'd get there in the end, me old mucker - you obviously weren't adding enough water again last night!

I neither know nor care what Spielberg is in his private life. What's under discussion is what he puts on screen in the context of the Great War. Similarly, the requirement of the BBC's Charter to both entertain and educate is separate from a discussion of Reith's public and private faces.

George

[PMHart]

Hi George,

You miss-spelt faeces old chum!

Helpful Pete