fellop Posted 11 February , 2014 Share Posted 11 February , 2014 I have to add that I am in general enjoying the programmes; I have also recently purchased a signed copy of the book. My view is that it gives a reasonably balanced view in a chronological order. Certainly any die hard dyed in wool pedantic Great War head banger may pick holes in it but I believe the programme is not primarily aimed at those/us and as tancred in post 166 correctly identifies it is a television programme; time, post production and the cutting room floor all take their toll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 11 February , 2014 Share Posted 11 February , 2014 The clue is in the title "Britain at War" not a definitive history of the war 1914-1918. In my opinion by highlighting the experiences of the public and the role of women in particular it covers many aspects of the conflict which were ignored by programme makers in the recent past. The only comparison I can make is with the excellent series by Ian Hislop entitled "Not Forgotten". What exactly is a "Great War Head Banger"?. Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Hone Posted 11 February , 2014 Share Posted 11 February , 2014 A slang term used to describe an obsessive or real enthusiast, originally applied to fans of heavy metal rock music who shake their heads violently in time with the beat. It was applied by someone long ago to some of my pupils who came on each battlefields tour and made sure that they were first in the queue when letters for the next one were issued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelS Posted 11 February , 2014 Share Posted 11 February , 2014 Having had the opportunity to watch again: '...But in November 1917 came a glimmer of hope another terrifying new weapon had entered the war, but this time it was British. The tank was a brand new British invention...' OK perhaps I'm being a pedant; I'll concede that the tank, despite entering the war much earlier, might still have been considered as 'brand new' at Cambrai, & there's no doubting that the advances made would have given a 'glimmer of hope' at the time, but the impression was still given that the very first use of tanks was at Cambrai, a fact I remember being mistaught at school, and I suspect that many of my age, without further insight, would answer a general knowledge question on the first use of tanks with 'Cambrai, November 1917'! It's true that The Chronology of the programme is a bit strange at times, for example covering the horrors of Passchendaele after the 'glimmer of hope' of Cambrai seems a bit odd, but it doesn't suffer for that, and despite minor criticisms - lets face it, it's unlikely that anyone with a little more than basic knowledge on any subject matter covered by a TV documentary of this type, be it WW1 or whatever, will not be unable to find something to criticise - I've enjoyed the programmes, and can't find fault with 'Paxo's' presentation style (Not to mention being extremely grateful that one of the more excitable or left wing TV historians wasn't chosen for the project) NigelS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 11 February , 2014 Share Posted 11 February , 2014 The BBC is doing well with this series. The odd errors do not spoil the overall impact. The closing moments of the programme last night were worth a thousand words. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 11 February , 2014 Share Posted 11 February , 2014 Just a couple of small points, the opening titles and music remind me of the superb intro to "Band of Brothers" and how the heck do the rostrum cameramen give the impression of 3D with the cracking still photos used of which in last nights episode those group images of the children were very moving. This just seems so right on many levels and considerable effort has obviously gone into producing such a result. Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fattyowls Posted 11 February , 2014 Share Posted 11 February , 2014 The clue is in the title "Britain at War" not a definitive history of the war 1914-1918. In my opinion by highlighting the experiences of the public and the role of women in particular it covers many aspects of the conflict which were ignored by programme makers in the recent past. The only comparison I can make is with the excellent series by Ian Hislop entitled "Not Forgotten". What exactly is a "Great War Head Banger"?. Norman Norman, I think I might be me. I'm with you on the series, I've learned a huge amount. I also know what you mean about "Band of Brothers". The BBC is doing well with this series. The odd errors do not spoil the overall impact. The closing moments of the programme last night were worth a thousand words. Old Tom Tom I'm so glad it wasn't just me; what was it about the footage of Tyne Cot that was so affecting? I know the place well but there was something about the angle as the camera rose to show the scale of the place that got me in a way being there never has. Pete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 11 February , 2014 Share Posted 11 February , 2014 I believe that the answer is Pete that considerable thought and effort has been involved and I reiterate that the researchers have done a magnificent job. I suspect but of course I cannot confirm that Paxman had a major role in the planning and content of the series. Take a look at the BBC web site here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01npqws Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 11 February , 2014 Share Posted 11 February , 2014 I must admit that I am impressed by this programme. I could nit-pick a little but overall, it is well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth505 Posted 12 February , 2014 Share Posted 12 February , 2014 Am quite enjoying but why the lengthy bit on Bickerstaff at the end? Why should we care about his disillusionment? Sets the table for a meaningful discussion of attrition but that'll never come through on the telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Phillips Posted 12 February , 2014 Share Posted 12 February , 2014 Is it me or is there something suggestive when the woman holds up the carrot and smiles! With the caption "This is why the U-boats don't worry ME." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBully Posted 12 February , 2014 Share Posted 12 February , 2014 Again I think Paxo did well considering all the limitations of time and having to present a prime time TV documentary for a mass audience. His emphasis is interesting....for example on the food shortages he seemed to underplay the role of the convoys but stress food rationing ( after spending some time covering allotments but then seemed to play their role down too) as a means of dealing with the problem. Made me think of the whole subject again in a different light. Regards Michael Bully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayessex Posted 12 February , 2014 Share Posted 12 February , 2014 Is it me or is there something suggestive when the woman holds up the carrot and smiles! With the caption "This is why the U-boats don't worry ME." Think it may just be you Dave! Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartAB Posted 12 February , 2014 Share Posted 12 February , 2014 Am quite enjoying but why the lengthy bit on Bickerstaff at the end? Why should we care about his disillusionment? Sets the table for a meaningful discussion of attrition but that'll never come through on the telly. The quotation made me reach for a copy of the Bickersteth Diaries. I found the passage Paxo quoted and then read on. Bickersteth was disillusioned by the horror of war, but that doesn't appear to have made him 'anti-war' on principle in the way that some others, such as fellow-chaplain Studdert Kennedy did. So not the best example of disillusionment. But I concur with the widespread general approval of the programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 13 February , 2014 Share Posted 13 February , 2014 I am greatly enjoying the idiosyncratic nature of this series and Paxo's obvious enthusiasm. but I hadn't realised just how bandy legged he was until seeing him walk - he doesn't usually walk very much in his interviews! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 13 February , 2014 Share Posted 13 February , 2014 Oddly enough, David, that was my wife's main comment on the series so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 13 February , 2014 Share Posted 13 February , 2014 As they used to say in my part of the world 'He could not catch a pig' Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 13 February , 2014 Share Posted 13 February , 2014 What has Mr Paxmans legs got to do with the series, perhaps someone can explain. Unless of course these are personal comments aimed at him in which case why?. Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 13 February , 2014 Share Posted 13 February , 2014 I am greatly enjoying the idiosyncratic nature of this series and Paxo's obvious enthusiasm. but I hadn't realised just how bandy legged he was until seeing him walk - he doesn't usually walk very much in his interviews! Hear, hear David - he wanders and ambles so much that it's impossible not to be sidetracked. Maybe the production team could have advised slightly more suitable clothing for the 'Happy Wanderer' scenes. Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 13 February , 2014 Share Posted 13 February , 2014 Suggestion to those affected by Mr Paxmans physical appearance and the fact that he seems to walk about a bit, there is a red button on most TV remotes that when pushed will switch off the TV thereby saving further anguish to those affected. As for Mr Paxman I am sure he could not care less about such comments as have recently been made here and I ask again what was the reason such comments were made? It is erudite discussions such as this one that makes this forum so interesting. Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted 13 February , 2014 Share Posted 13 February , 2014 I didn't notice his walking just his talking,which was so interesting Gerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 13 February , 2014 Share Posted 13 February , 2014 It is erudite discussions such as this one that makes this forum so interesting. Norman As someone who has persistently over your entire time on this forum, gone out of your way to sidetrack serious discussion, make fun of various writers/celebrities, and inflict your so-called 'humour' on the rest of us endless times, I consider you have a real nerve to take others to task over comments like this. A comment on production of a programme is as valid as any other. You need to get off your high horse and get down to offering something useful and individual to Great War research. Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron da Valli Posted 13 February , 2014 Share Posted 13 February , 2014 I am greatly enjoying the idiosyncratic nature of this series and Paxo's obvious enthusiasm. but I hadn't realised just how bandy legged he was until seeing him walk - he doesn't usually walk very much in his interviews! Reminds me of an old Lancashire saying: " He couldn't stop a pig in a ginnel" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 13 February , 2014 Share Posted 13 February , 2014 That's you told Norman, and quite right too. Well said Sue. C'mon Norman, it was a wee bit o' humour. I think we all agree Paxo's not doing too bad, bandy legs and all? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 13 February , 2014 Share Posted 13 February , 2014 Dear Seadog, or may I call you Sea? It was merely an observation, no more a criticism than when people call me pigeon toed - which I am. Or tall dark and handsome, which I was. As I said I think the programme is great. But he is bandy - it doesn't make him a bad person, or me one for for noticing. Pigeon Toedly David 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