Wipers Times

[geraint]

Excellent stuff!

[caulkheader]

I find this whole appreciation of the general quality of the television programme rather disappointing and frankly unbecoming of the forum membership.

I suggest that we all watch it again on iplayer, freezing each frame, until we can spot an incorrect shoulder title or button, or possibly the wrong type of moustache or mud.

Just to get the ball rolling then..............................

Officers carrying 'longs' when going over the top.

[Scalyback]

Just to get the ball rolling then..............................

Officers carrying 'longs' when going over the top.

They did. Less of a target for snipers.

[robigunner88]

Yes that's something I found strange Caulkheader! I guess Officers could pick and choose which weapon they went into action with. Perhaps in a memoir he stated that he preferred using a rifle? Did the Lieutenant use a rifle as well?

[IPT]

All the characters were 2-dimensional and a bit too cliched

Smartarse public school subaltern - check

Bluff NCO with regional accent - check

Dim but endearing young lad - check

Spluttering Colonel Blimp - check

I completely take your point, but I can't help but wonder if all those "clichés" were all genuinely present and correct at the time.

As an aside, there is a comment on page 1 about the presence of Churchill's being a tad far-fetched (which I completely understand), but it seems that Davies did indeed cross his path.

[NigelS]

I don't want to gratuitously correct Nigel S, but as you are interested in this phrase, it should be "cocking a snook." It is often associated with the gesture of applying ones thumb to the tip of the nose, palm open, fingers vertical (like a cocks comb) and wiggling them. Tongue stuck out is an optional extra. Which is probably what Nigel will do to me !

I'd already had a PM on this from Martin G; I'll admit that I've known it as 'snook' but ended up typing 'snoot'; however, there may be a good reason for this as Dave (Croonaert) has already mentioned in post 76: according to a BBC site (Click) both versions are in use (as are several other phrases referring to the same gesture.) In the absence of a 'cock a snook/snoot' (delete according to preference...) emoticon - perhaps we should have one - as Stoppage Drill has suggested it, this will have to do

NigelS

[IPT]

I hope this is a satisfactory solution.

If so, i'll be cock-a-hoot.

[MartinWills]

Entertaining as it was, it did not go down entirely satisfactorily in the Wills household.

No sooner were the Poperinghe Fancies mentioned than the rivet counting trainspotter in Mrs Wills emerged. Vaseline and Glycerine.! Huh!! Nothing to do the the "Fancies" - they were the stars of the "Follies". The "Fancies" were created in the wake of the Follies as "hot rivals".

Now where is my ABC of GS wagon numbers ........

[Moonraker]

... All the characters were 2-dimensional and a bit too cliched

Smartarse public school subaltern - check

Bluff NCO with regional accent - check

Dim but endearing young lad - check

Spluttering Colonel Blimp - check

I've only watched the first half so far, but thought it very good. But it seems that script-writers can't win when it comes to creating characters. Given that there had to be subalterns, NCOs, young soldiers and senior officers (and several varieties of the last were included) how should they have been portrayed - in what, after all was, a relatively light-hearted production?

(Without wishing to go too much off-topic, a popular TV series excoriated in this forum is soon to return to our screens, and one criticism has been that the fictional lord is atypical - perhaps instead he should have been "cliched"?.)

Moonraker

[Black Maria]

Yes that's something I found strange Caulkheader! I guess Officers could pick and choose which weapon they went into action with. Perhaps in a memoir he stated that he preferred using a rifle? Did the Lieutenant use a rifle as well?

Did he write a memoir?, I got as much information reading the preface of the 1930 edition of "The Wipers Times" as was in the programme, it also

contained a bit of the dialogue. I did learn that Roberts disliked the Daily Mail, or was this the writers attempt at a bit of liberal humour?

As a bit of light entertainment it was okay, but I would not go out of my way to watch it again.

[Jim Hastings]

Yes that's something I found strange Caulkheader! I guess Officers could pick and choose which weapon they went into action with. Perhaps in a memoir he stated that he preferred using a rifle? Did the Lieutenant use a rifle as well?

I was reading the war diary of an East Surrey's Bn the other day (sure it was the 1st Bn, ended up checking a few that day!) and in it an order was made for officers to wear ORs equipment and carry rifles so as not to be so conspicuous and therefore prim targets for snipers and machine gunners

Cheers

Jim

Sorry that was 'prime' targets, not 'prim' lol

[Bart150]

Not bad.

However, since it was a real-life story and it had an hour and a half I’d have liked to learn some more of the real-life detail, eg

- how many issues over what time period

- how related to the course of the war – eg mainly at quieter periods or not

- circulation, which presumably varied a lot; maybe it steadily increased or maybe not

- how physically distributed and to whom

- how much co-operation from the authorities to enable distribution

- finance – presumably free to reader, but if so some money must have been needed, where from; and if free to reader, what constraint governed the circulation

Answers to the first point are indeed given on the BBC website.

[Old Tom]

Only just got back on line, trouble with the old lap top. Delighted that it was so well received and pleased that the BBC can still, in spite of their bonuses, produce excellent informative and entertaining television. I was beginning to think they had forgotten how to do it.

Old Tom

[martin_sole]

I've only watched the first half so far, but thought it very good. But it seems that script-writers can't win when it comes to creating characters. Given that there had to be subalterns, NCOs, young soldiers and senior officers (and several varieties of the last were included) how should they have been portrayed - in what, after all was, a relatively light-hearted production?

(Without wishing to go too much off-topic, a popular TV series excoriated in this forum is soon to return to our screens, and one criticism has been that the fictional lord is atypical - perhaps instead he should have been "cliched"?.)

Moonraker

Yes, blending comedy with serious issues is a tough brief for a writer, but it can be done (Four Lions, Life of Brian, Trainspotting) As IPT has pointed out, the social structures of the day would have been much less homogeneous than we're used to, so maybe the cliches aren't that cliched.

I still couldn't help but feel that some of the characters were nothing more than clothes horses for Mr Hislop to hang his Coat of Many Comedies on. Considering the caliber of actors they had in the programme (and 90 minutes to play with), I felt it ought to have been better than it was.

[SiegeGunner]

However, since it was a real-life story and it had an hour and a half I’d have liked to learn some more of the real-life detail, eg

- how many issues over what time period

- how related to the course of the war – eg mainly at quieter periods or not

- circulation, which presumably varied a lot; maybe it steadily increased or maybe not

- how physically distributed and to whom

- how much co-operation from the authorities to enable distribution

- finance – presumably free to reader, but if so some money must have been needed, where from; and if free to reader, what constraint governed the circulation

Answers to the first point are indeed given on the BBC website.

The recent 'historical drama' series The White Queen was followed/accompanied by a factual documentary called The Real White Queen, and there is surely scope for Hislop to make/present such a documentary on the Wipers Times.

[Steven Broomfield]

Yes, blending comedy with serious issues is a tough brief for a writer, but it can be done (Four Lions,

Brilliant film - is a wookie a bear?

Anyway, I digress: post 102 refers to "longs" being carried by officers. This is a small and possibly petty point, but I had no idea what caulkheader was referring to. Subsequent posts make me assume he meant "rifles". I've never heard a rifle referred to as a "long" before.

Just thoguht I'd mention it in passing.

[martin_sole]

BTW, did Churchill still wear his Adrian lid after the army were issued steel helmets?

[kevmc]

BTW, did Churchill still wear his Adrian lid after the army were issued steel helmets?

From "A Study in Failure":

"Churchill volunteered for active service, and was given the command of the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers battalion from January to May, 1916."

"On one such trip, he was given a French helmet, which he wore throughout his service at the front."

Kevin

[Jim Hastings]

Brilliant film - is a wookie a bear?

Anyway, I digress: post 102 refers to "longs" being carried by officers. This is a small and possibly petty point, but I had no idea what caulkheader was referring to. Subsequent posts make me assume he meant "rifles". I've never heard a rifle referred to as a "long" before.

Just thoguht I'd mention it in passing.

Hi Steven,

When I was serving, late 80's to mid 2000s 'longs' referred to rifles (and weapons of equivalent length) and 'shorts' to pistols - I first came across such references in Northern Ireland

Cheers

Jim

[Steven Broomfield]

Thanks Jim. I really had never heard it before. LAWs, MAWs and HAWs maybe.

[Steven Broomfield]

Careful - we could take this way off topic.

[AlanCurragh]

Wise words from Broomers - can we stay on topic please

[Black Maria]

Just read a revue where it states that the writers of the programme had access to Lieut-Col Roberts unpublished memoir which is held by

his family. If they ever decide to publish it, I am sure it would make a fascinating read.

[Jim Hastings]

That would be one for the birthday/Ch*******s/ or 'any excuse' list Blackmaria. Would be an insightful read on so many levels

Cheers Jim

[Gardenerbill]

Watched with my wife and son all loved it.

With reference to earlier posts, why do people think that only public school boys have this kind of sense of humour?