Steven Broomfield Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 Just joined this forum, enjoyed this thread, but deeply disappointed that no eagle-eyed member questioned a non-conformist minister wearing a surplice. ;/) Stuart Welcome. I can't be fagged to trawl through it all, but I think it was mentioned somewhere (not by me). Anyway, I enjoyed the series. Despite some howlers one could drive a bus through, it was never less than interesting and superbly done all round. Mt only concern is that there was no mention at the end of the series "returning in the Autumn" or whatever. Is it definitely going to happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartAB Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 According to the Grauniad today, a second series has been commissioned, on the basis of 5m viewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KGB Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 I enjoyed it (apart from 1914 Stars appearing in 1916). Wonder if they will have WW Two troops wearing Falklands Medal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBully Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 Quite a thoughtful review by George Simmers from the Great War Fiction Blog http://greatwarficti...eing/#more-3421 One particular crticism stands out. " Previous episodes had shown us the bullying of a conscientious objector and a case of shell-shock brought on not by enemy bombardment, but by the trauma of Field Punishment Number One. Soldiers were shown as either vicious bullies or helpless victims, never as men trained to do a difficult job. The only enthusiasts for the war were either cruel or deluded; all the nice people were ‘anti-war’." Looking back from what I remember of the series, have to agree that whilst I am prepared to overlook a great deal of historical errors on the basis that the progamme is fictional drama, the points above are well made. Regards Michael Bully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pighills Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 The only enthusiasts for the war were either cruel or deluded; Surely they were only deluded because they didn't know what they were letting themselves in for. That could also,probably be said for those who were classed as cruel, and indeed any label you care to attach to people. No-one cold possibly understand what they were letting themselves in for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 An above average series. I only wish the actors would stop mumbling and speak clearly occasionally. I was wearing my hearing aids. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBully Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 Indeed, I think that George Simmers is trying to make the point ( in the review as a whole) that the drama relies on seeing the Great War from '21st century eyes' as it were. None of the more sympathetic characters would have been permitted to have uttered a view that justified Britain's entry into the Great War and to have advanced the line that the conflict had to be won by the Allies. Regards Michael Bully The only enthusiasts for the war were either cruel or deluded; Surely they were only deluded because they didn't know what they were letting themselves in for. That could also,probably be said for those who were classed as cruel, and indeed any label you care to attach to people. No-one cold possibly understand what they were letting themselves in for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoppage Drill Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 Indeed, I think that George Simmers is trying to make the point ( in the review as a whole) that the drama relies on seeing the Great War from '21st century eyes' as it were. None of the more sympathetic characters would have been permitted to have uttered a view that justified Britain's entry into the Great War and to have advanced the line that the conflict had to be won by the Allies. Regards Michael Bully James Delingpole's point, viz. http://www.spectator...1/hard-times-4/ I don't watch it, so can't comment from first hand experience. I just know what to expect from the Beeb. But look, seeing as we're on The Culture Forum, did anybody see (hear) the remote control faart machine activated as Judd Trump bent to take a shot in the snooker champs ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 Madam. Please. Pas devant les enfants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 Reminds me of the punch line 'have that one on me folks' from an underling,following the passage of very senior wind. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoppage Drill Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 Madam. Please. Pas devant les enfants. Have I lowered the tone ? (So did Mr T. E flat, I think Pitch perfect.) Pas devant les chevaux innit ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoppage Drill Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 Reminds me of the punch line 'have that one on me folks' from an underling,following the passage of very senior wind. Old Tom "Have that one on me, ma'am", (an Irish Guards Quartermaster to Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.) I swear it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 Pas devant les chevaux innit ? Leave my hair out of this, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seaJane Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 On the subject of non-conformity, would a Methodist minister have remained at one chapel for seven years (or whatever the time-scale might have been). I thought they were rotated every few years? Usually it's five years (I think) and there can be one extension on request - so not impossible. Also could there have been a shortage on the "home" circuits due to the number gone abroad as chaplains? sJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipdavies48 Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 Pity they didn't get their research correct. A dead soldiers mum wearing her sons 1914/15 star in 1916!!!! These were not issued until 1919. Military Police arresting a lad who had overstayed his leave, wearing side arms in the UK. Surely absconders in UK were usually dealt with by civilian police and then handed over to the army. Similary wasn't there a distinction between the treatmnent meted out to those who had absconded/overstayed/deserted in UK from those who did so "in the face of the enemy". I have seen punishments like CB, loss of pay, imprisonment etc to those arrested in UK. I don't think they were shot at dawn. In the last epiisode we saw a shot at dawn plaque on the newely dedicated war memorial? I thought that thge identities of those shot at dawn were not revealed until much later in history. I believe that initailly relatives were told that their sons/brothers/fathers were killed or had died in France. I found the series deisappointing as all the olde stereotypes and myths were regurgitated. It was also a stop start plot which left certain questions unanswered. For example why was the old guy disfigured? Why did he kill all the cattle before he shot himself? Maybe a valiant attempt but poor drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pighills Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 See upthread for previous discussions regarding accuracy and 'poetic license'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 upthread Tell me you made that up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pighills Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 I Tell me you made that up! If it sends you crazy not to know then no, I won't tell you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripeyman Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 An above average series. I only wish the actors would stop mumbling and speak clearly occasionally. I was wearing my hearing aids. Old Tom Mumbling of actors is rife now, they should enunciate or find another occupation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnumbellum Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 Pity they didn't get their research correct ... Military Police arresting a lad who had overstayed his leave, wearing side arms in the UK. Surely absconders in UK were usually dealt with by civilian police and then handed over to the army. Similarly, wasn't there a distinction between the treatment meted out to those who had absconded/overstayed/deserted in UK from those who did so "in the face of the enemy". I have seen punishments like CB, loss of pay, imprisonment etc to those arrested in UK. I don't think they were shot at dawn. In the last episode we saw a shot at dawn plaque on the newly dedicated war memorial? I thought that the identities of those shot at dawn were not revealed until much later in history. I believe that initiailly relatives were told that their sons/brothers/fathers were killed or had died in France. I found the series disappointing, as all the old stereotypes and myths were regurgitated. It was also a stop start plot which left certain questions unanswered ... Maybe a valiant attempt, but poor drama. The apparently calculated ridiculousness of portraying military police (complete with side arms) coming to arrest Joe Middleton for overstaying his leave, instead of the normal procedure of using a civilian police constable, has been discussed earlier in this forum, but we were left to speculate blindly on the significance of the single gunshot heard in the background as Joe was led away. It appeared in the last episode that the shot did not signify, as some thought, unlawful summary execution by his captors, but a formal execution by firing squad following court-martial. We were not told, however, where the court-martial was held or on what basis a death sentence was ordered for such an offence committed in Britain, as distinct from France or any other theatre of battle. There was no such case among the 300 + men actually shot at dawn, and it is wholly unrealistic to suppose that he was shipped back to France in his condition simply to be tried and shot; it is equally unrealistic to suppose that an execution for that offence was carried out in Britain. As to the plaque added to the village war memorial immediately before the unveiling, the wording certainly appears to be based directly on the Albert Ingham case, but the difference is that the words added to Ingham's gravestone were added many years later, by his father. More recently one or two SAD names have been added to local war memorials, but no such names were included at the time of erecting such memorials. I can only conclude that the Joe Middleton war memorial episode was conscious dramatic licence. On the point of whether the SAD names were known, in the case of men whose dependants would be entitled to a pension if they had been killed in action, the families had to be told the truth, which included automatic denial of pension, so it was not unrealistic to show the Middleton family knowing about Joe's fate. What was unrealistic was the 'announcement' at the village meeting that bodies would not be repatriated. There was never any tradition, in Britain or elsewhere, that during or after a war soldier's remains would be repatriated, other than in exceptional cases such as Horatio Nelson, and therefore there would be no expectation by families. That was part of the mystique that made the burial of the Unknown Warrior so special. The new practice of repatriation of bodies was not invented until the Falklands War in 1982, and, even then, it was an option for families, not a routine. Another matter never explained was that the conscientious objector schoolteacher, having been left apparently cowed into submission in donning a uniform before being led away by fictitious military police, suddenly reappears as having been in prison, but the details of his offence and court-martial were not revealed. The most common offence for which an objector was imprisoned in WW1 was refusing the order to put on a uniform, so what was the offence for which this objector was imprisoned - the people have a right to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevmc Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 . There was never any tradition, in Britain or elsewhere, that during or after a war soldier's remains would be repatriated, other than in exceptional cases such as Horatio Nelson, and therefore there would be no expectation by families. That was part of the mystique that made the burial of the Unknown Warrior so special. The new practice of repatriation of bodies was not invented until the Falklands War in 1982, Quote from research by Terry Denham, of this Forum: Repatriation from a war zone was banned from mid-1915. Prior to that time only a handful of officers were repatriated to the UK due to relatives having to pay the cost. The ban was put in place mainly because of the logistical, health and morale problems the return of thousands of bodies would create. The cost would have been irrelevant as it would be borne by the relatives - presumably. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoppage Drill Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 Tell me you made that up! He upmade it, OK? It is oxymoronic to associate any television production with a forum dedicated (nominally at least) to "Culture." Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Wade Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 She. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_armstrong Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 It is oxymoronic to associate any television production with a forum dedicated (nominally at least) to "Culture." Discuss. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pighills Posted 8 May , 2013 Share Posted 8 May , 2013 He upmade it, OK? Shhhhhhhhhh, don't put him out of his misery. 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