auchonvillerssomme Posted 23 April , 2014 Share Posted 23 April , 2014 To those who say "it's only drama" I would say that popular imagery can too easily become the prevailing conception. Think how Shakespeare's character assassination of Richard III has become accepted fact. In fairness the only 2 things I knew about Richard III from Shakespeare was that he was a child murderer and had a physical deformity of his spine. He is still No1 in the frame for the first and evidently his remains were identified because of his number of unusual physical features, most notably, a severe curvature of the back. What part did I get wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 23 April , 2014 Share Posted 23 April , 2014 My wife has series recorded the lot. After Part 1 was duly played there was a long silence. Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but this called for heroic efforts in that direction. Playing the subsequent parts has not been mentioned, and I am holding my breath. Broomer's "B&ll&cks" verdict seems to fit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 23 April , 2014 Share Posted 23 April , 2014 A lot of criticism about this programme for it's inaccuracy yet those who criticise are no better. Kevin It was made clear in the programme that he wanted to visit his mother, but it seems to me at the end he had become more pro-rebel, insofar as he said he wasn't wearing the King's uniform because he wasn't his King. I criticise the programme because it's rubbish, top to bottom, not for its inaccuracies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 23 April , 2014 Share Posted 23 April , 2014 It's not supposed to be a documentary is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 23 April , 2014 Share Posted 23 April , 2014 No, but a good plot, decent acting and believable characters help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevmc Posted 23 April , 2014 Share Posted 23 April , 2014 It was made clear in the programme that he wanted to visit his mother, but it seems to me at the end he had become more pro-rebel, insofar as he said he wasn't wearing the King's uniform because he wasn't his King. I criticise the programme because it's rubbish, top to bottom, not for its inaccuracies. A selective response to my Post. The point made, incorrectly, was: SFayers, on 23 Apr 2014 - 08:38 AM, said: Still, I can't imagine why such a pro-rebellion man would even be there in the first place, it's not even as though conscription was introduced in Ireland. As I understand it all of the Irish soldiers that joined the British army during the war did so as volunteers? His (soldiers) change of stance came about because of the lack of sympathy to a request to visit his mother. SF misses the point - hardly appropriate from someone criticising the programme content. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFayers Posted 23 April , 2014 Share Posted 23 April , 2014 I happen to agree with Steven's observation in the way the character developed - I haven't missed any point. To be absolutely clear, in my earlier post I wasn't actually making a criticism (although I think I am equally entitled to voice my opinion if I wish to as is any other forum member) - I was simply making an observation. No need to get personal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug504 Posted 23 April , 2014 Share Posted 23 April , 2014 No, but a good plot, decent acting and believable characters help. Regarding the debate around this topic; As the old saying goes, "opinions are like A_____holes, we all have them", for every 1000 people who hate the programme their will be an equivalent number who have thoroughly enjoyed it for what it is, entertainment. I've quite enjoyed it despite the numerous historical inaccuracies and borrowed story lines. As PJA and Auchonvillerssomme hint at, relax and enjoy it for what it is. I've taken many school groups to a variety of WW1 sites and do not expect every student to become a lifelong devotee of the history of WW1. However, I do hope that in some I spark an interest that they themselves will go on to develop in the future and thus perpetuate the memory and gain a greater understanding. I see the role of these programmes much the same. Many people are sitting down to them after a hard day's work and want to be entertained, particularly at 9:00pm on a Sunday evening. The majority will go away with exactly that, the programme, in my opinion, is entertaining. However, if it stimulates a greater interest in the topic in a much smaller number and they then go on to further their own education in the subject it will have done the subject some good. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seaforths Posted 23 April , 2014 Share Posted 23 April , 2014 I come clean in most of my posts, and admit that I do not watch this thing. I was quite confident what it would be like, and it seems I was right. To those who say "it's only drama" I would say that popular imagery can too easily become the prevailing conception. Think how Shakespeare's character assassination of Richard III has become accepted fact. It's quite acceptable for polemicist dramatists to produce books and plays which are at odds with historical truth - think Hochuth and "Soldiers" - but things like this only reach a small public, all of whom have to make an effort to get to the theatre, and pay to see it. Mass media dramas, which will be absorbed by a generally uninformed public, especially those put out by an organisation we all pay for, should aim for higher standards of accuracy. The Hochuth business reached a satisfying conclusion; the man apparently believed all the participants in 'Churchill's murder of Sikorski' were all dead when he wrote his play; however, the Czech pilot was alive and living in California, and with the help of Carter-Ruck, P. got himself a nice £50k (1972) in libel damages. That was noting to do with the BBC, I hasten to add ! Apparently, in some recent poll, more than half of British people did not know that Sherlock Holmes was fictitious and actually thought he had been a real person. But so what? It's not going to stop the world from turning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevmc Posted 24 April , 2014 Share Posted 24 April , 2014 I happen to agree with Steven's observation in the way the character developed - I haven't missed any point. To be absolutely clear, in my earlier post I wasn't actually making a criticism (although I think I am equally entitled to voice my opinion if I wish to as is any other forum member) - I was simply making an observation. No need to get personal That still doesn't make sense. "Still, I can't imagine why such a pro-rebellion man would even be there in the first place" does not match "the way the character developed". Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seaforths Posted 24 April , 2014 Share Posted 24 April , 2014 I don't think he was pro-rebellion. He became frustrated and rebellious when he wasn't given leave to go home to visit his mother and he felt that no one was listening to his plight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 24 April , 2014 Share Posted 24 April , 2014 " ...for every 1000 people who hate the programme their will be an equivalent number who have thoroughly enjoyed it for what it is, entertainment. ..." Oh, really? Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ridgus Posted 24 April , 2014 Share Posted 24 April , 2014 " ...for every 1000 people who hate the programme their will be an equivalent number who have thoroughly enjoyed it for what it is, entertainment. ..." Oh, really? Discuss. I'd say that it is far too conservative an estimate of the imbalance between the outraged and the entertained. The first episode attracted an audience of 7.2 million. Unless you really think there were 3.6 million Great War aficionados who switched off in disgust I would suggest we are in a huge minority. When I was at University 'I Claudius' was first broadcast. The classics don at my college expressed his horror at a scene where the Emperor was applauded in the Senate , saying that such an act would have been unthinkable and that he wouldn't watch another minute of it. I seem to recall we were all enjoying it far too much to miss the next episode in solidarity David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 25 April , 2014 Share Posted 25 April , 2014 Ridgus - Your analysis is interesting and dare I say I think it is slightly flawed. Just because 7.2 m (allegedly) watched the program does not mean more people were entertained by it than were not. Clearly there were other choices and more people actually watched different programmes. According to BARB the average daily viewing figure for the UK is 44 million....which implies tens of millions didn't watch Crimson Field. Using the same logic one might argue that more people disliked the programme that liked it. The UK TV viewing audience had choices and most chose not to watch it. The viewing figure will not include people who decided not to watch it after seeing the trailers or previews or switched off after 30 seconds .... The reality is no-one knows how many people dislike the programme as viewing figures only record the positive and not the negative. Just a thought. Edit: Eastenders consistently has some of the highest viewing figures on TV. I suspect (but cannot prove) that more people dislike Eastenders than like it based on the fact that more people choose to watch other channels when it is broadcast. ...or choose to watch nothing and read a good book instead. Apparently 700k did switch off by the time the second episode was shown if Digital Spy is to be believed. see here (5.4m) -the implication being the first episode was watched by 6.1m. BARB has different figures here (6.891 m) from your 7.2m ...which perhaps shows that viewing figures are not particularly reliable. The spread in the three sources being 1.1m.... For the record I have not watched the Crimson Field. This thread is far more entertaining. I have made a solemn vow not to watch any Great War programmes on the TV with the only exception of anything made by Ian Hislop. MG Edited for clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 25 April , 2014 Share Posted 25 April , 2014 For the record I have not watched the Crimson Field. This thread is far more entertaining. I have made a solemn vow not to watch any Great War programmes on the TV with the only exception of anything made by Ian Hislop. MG On point one, there are acres of slowly-setting cement more worth watching than the programme under discussion. On point 2, I tend to agree. As I have said before (ad nauseam, some might say), pretty well all the GW coverage so far has veered between "disappointing" and "Poor" so I suspect you (and I) won't miss much by sticking to that plan. The programmes on BBC2 and BBC 4 on The Georgians are far more illuminating, and manage to keep away from the sentimentality and mawkishness of much of the GW coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 25 April , 2014 Share Posted 25 April , 2014 I watched the final episode of 'Southland' while Trish was watching the Crimson Field, now that was good telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 25 April , 2014 Share Posted 25 April , 2014 Hislop's "Olden Days" is in a class of its own...and with Great War content too.... to find a link between rehabilitating shell-shock cases and ANZACs Morris Dancing is a thing of wonder. You simply could not make it up. Beautifully researched and done with some humour. MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 25 April , 2014 Share Posted 25 April , 2014 I will meerly observe that the newspapers were full of criticism of Jamaica Inn but I have not noticed an comment on the Crimson Field. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 25 April , 2014 Share Posted 25 April , 2014 Several of the more serious newspapers were reasonably impressed with the first episode, and I vaguely recall a couple of predictions on the lines of "that it won't be over by Christmas" and that it could continue for the duration of the war. The opinions of a small minority of people who know a bit - or a lot - about the Great War (one per cent of the viewing public??) count little against those of the average viewer. At the risk of encouraging a further diversion away from the subject of this thread, the average viewer knows that most modern-day police dramas don't reflect reality but still watches and enjoys them. Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petestarling Posted 25 April , 2014 Share Posted 25 April , 2014 They approached, and got, the best historical advisers. I had a bit input to the programme by frequent contact and discussions with Professor Christine Hallett who eventually took on the job. However, at the end of the day the production team made decisions that went against some of the expert advice they were given. If there are things wrong, it's certainly not because they didn't know about them, but because they felt that their view was better for the final effect they were trying to achieve. I think that happens quite frequently these days with programmes of this type. How it will turn out dramatically remains to be seen. Sue I did a lot of work pre production and was on set with Christine but they basically ignored all we said especially the QAS uniforms because scarlet did not look good on camera!I then read some scripts and made corrections but I doubt they took them into consideration. I have not watched the series and I am cautious about doing so. Pete starling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
985acoy Posted 25 April , 2014 Share Posted 25 April , 2014 hey people BREAKING NEWS tv 's have on off switches, if you don't like switch OFF END OF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 25 April , 2014 Share Posted 25 April , 2014 hey people BREAKING NEWS tv 's have on off switches, if you don't like switch OFF END OF. In this case, we are actually paying for this tripe, so we have a right to complain about it? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollytree Posted 25 April , 2014 Share Posted 25 April , 2014 You have made so many perjorative comments that I haven't even bothered to watch :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 25 April , 2014 Share Posted 25 April , 2014 You have made so many perjorative comments that I haven't even bothered to watch :-) Don't just take my word for it, and by all means watch it, you're quite within your right to like it? I don't. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 25 April , 2014 Share Posted 25 April , 2014 I would agree with Mike, we pay for the TV and for the license so that entitles us to complain us much as we want. It could also be said that as no one has to listen or respond to these complaints on forums, if they irritate, just don't look. 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