The Crimson Field - BBC drama series

[wintrip]

The first series is supposed to be set in 1915. All the soldiers are wearing soft caps with no helmets in sight.

So why is one of the main themes of Episode 4 some lads from a Pals Battalion who think that if they stick together they will be OK, many of their comrades having been killed? Most of the Pals battalions spent 1915 training in Britain. The Pals were slaughtered on the Somme in 1916, not in 1915.

I am surprised that such a historical inaccuracy was permitted.

[martin_sole]

_{Please forgive this rant but I have never seen such an appalling display of marching in drama ever.... Utter shambles, the director, that is the person directing this scene, is useless and should be ashamed of his efforts. Why cannot they get such a simple job of just getting the actors to walk in step never mind march ? Dreadful, just dreadful......}

Getting a lot of extras with no military experience to march in a convincing manner would have probably taken as much time as it took to shoot the entire episode

Casting directors will sometimes hire groups of real squaddies as army extras, who are more adept at moving in a soldierly manner...and then get barraged with "THEY DIDN'T CHECK-PACE IN 1915!!!"

[Neil Mackenzie]

I watched it for the first time last night and realise I have probably missed out on some of the plot lines but I enjoyed it for what it was.

The marching was unbelievable it has to be said and there was a remarkable lack of patients with every Ward Sister seemingly providing 1-1 care.

Neil

[David Ridgus]

(But we are told that there may well be another series to justify the astronomical sums spent on building the set. Lucky us!)

.

There will be another series because 6 million people are watching it every week

[Ghazala]

Perhaps we should all go to this....

http://www.florence-nightingale.co.uk/what-s-on/lights-camera-action-being-an-historic-advisor-to-film-and-television.html

[catfishmo]

It's in the Battle of the Somme film. You should find extracts from it on YouTube if not the whole film.

Cheers Martin B

I'll have a look. Thanks.

~Ginger

[David_Underdown]

The first series is supposed to be set in 1915. All the soldiers are wearing soft caps with no helmets in sight.

So why is one of the main themes of Episode 4 some lads from a Pals Battalion who think that if they stick together they will be OK, many of their comrades having been killed? Most of the Pals battalions spent 1915 training in Britain. The Pals were slaughtered on the Somme in 1916, not in 1915.

I am surprised that such a historical inaccuracy was permitted.

A number of New Army battalions got badly cut up at Loos in late 1915. Initially weren't tin hats trench stores, not indivdual issue too. I thought we had moved beyond 1915 by now.

[Moonraker]

Posted on Saturday on IMDB:

"Crimson Field" shed another 600,000 viewers this week. Gah. At this rate, the finale episode will be viewed by 10--the Queen and 9 of her corgis. Wonder if BBC will commission a second series anyway? Even if it continues to drop like a rock in a Ypres mud hole here on out? Richard Rankin said in an interview that Phelps had informally talked with them about ideas she had for further storylines. He also said that series 1 ends in 1915. So we won't be going far in the next two weeks. Gah, this program should have had at least 8 episodes. Ten would have been optimum. Take us up to the Somme at least. "

More IMDB debate

here.

Moonraker

[slick63]

Perhaps we should all go to this....

http://www.florence-nightingale.co.uk/what-s-on/lights-camera-action-being-an-historic-advisor-to-film-and-television.html

Post #453 on this thread was made by Pete Starling

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

[Stoppage Drill]

I am reading "Private Lord Crawford's Great War Diaries" at the mo. He served as a medical orderly with 12 CCS at Hazebrouck for a year+, 1915/1916 before returning to become Minister of Agriculture under Asquith and LG.

My, but didn't he (Scotland's premier Earl) have some views on the lady nurses !

Astonishing to think that a private soldier could have been seriously in the frame as a potential Viceroy of India . . . .

[auchonvillerssomme]

Judging by the positive opinions of ex-RAMC and ex-QARANC, including as I mentioned previously, my wife, on different forums they love the program so just the fact of involving someone who once served is no reason why it should be any good.

[Sue Light]

Judging by the positive opinions of ex-RAMC and ex-QARANC, including as I mentioned previously, my wife, on different forums they love the program so just the fact of involving someone who once served is no reason why it should be any good.

Although I'm reading reviews and aware of the popularity, I'm completely stunned by the attitudes of professional nurses. My main complaint is the appalling portrayal of trained nurses as corrupt, lying creatures, who are willing to submit to blackmail and set aside all their professional standards and integrity to further their personal agendas. A great pity if nurses today are willing to accept that sort of slur on their profession, or maybe just total ignorance of what life and work meant for nurses at that time.

Sue

[CarylW]

Ianw post #542. You've hit the nail on the head, for me anyway. It's the writing.

Nothing wrong with the set, that I can see, except that it looks a little too pristine. Equally, nothing wrong with the cast - some fine actors. Different writer? Who knows. 'Line of duty' was excellent and just goes to prove that the BBC can produce fine drama with the right writer. Sarah Phelps suggested in an interview recently that the crticism of 'The Crimson Field' was 'political' and aimed at the BBC. No, it isn't. Not for me anyway.

I'm not a particularly fussy or pedantic TV viewer in that I'm willing to be 'entertained'. I religiously follow two soaps (Corrie and Eastenders) and will watch, usually enjoy and not worry too much about historical or occupational accuracy (with a few exceptions) any period drama, forensic, detective or courtroom drama on whatever channel if it's reasonably well-written. So, as something of an expert on what could be classed as 'rubbish tv', I think I can safely say that 'The Crimson Field' in my opinion, scrapes the bottom of every cliché barrel and is very badly written. The subject, the viewers who pay a licence fee, the cast and crew, and above all the nurses and VADs who served all deserved much better.

(Dammit. I wasn't going to comment any more but.....)

[auchonvillerssomme]

Yes but in fairness in 34 years of nursing I have come across corrupt, thieving, lying and even murdering nurses and doctors so perhaps nurses are used to it.

[Sue Light]

Yes but in fairness in 34 years of nursing I have come across corrupt, thieving, lying and even murdering nurses and doctors so perhaps nurses are used to it.

Of course. I've never been a promoter of WW1 nurses as 'Angels and Heroines' and it's a view that I try hard to balance - they were a wide range of normal women. But this is presented as 'landmark drama' as part of BBCs Great War programming and for the writer to divide the women into 'fair' (the VADs) and 'foul' (the trained nurses) is gross misrepresentation and only fit for soap opera. The trained military nurse of the period has always had a poor deal in both fact and fiction - at best ignored, and at worst hung out to dry by various literate and literary VADs. Their public fame usually comes solely in the form of 'famous for dying' as in the case of Nellie Spindler. I feel it's about time they had some public recognition for their enormous contribution and not disparaged by putting on show a vision of just a few who displayed human weakness.

Sue

[CarylW]

Yes but in fairness in 34 years of nursing I have come across corrupt, thieving, lying and even murdering nurses and doctors so perhaps nurses are used to it.

Ditto. No-one is suggesting that all nurses are, or were angels, but let's have a fairer, more accurate depiction of the hard working women who were out there. Please! Not this Mills and Boon 'Medical Romance' hogwash.

[auchonvillerssomme]

You are right. During the day to day mundane stuff and when the stuff hits the fan I certainly have never have worked with a more professional group than my colleague's, RAMC and QA, and no the program doesn't do the memory of those who went before any favours.

[hillgorilla]

This thread should maybe be in Skindles. In fact I'm tempted to the view that the entire subject should be banished as "OFF TOPIC" since it is so far from realistic.

Keith

In what way is it so far from unrealistic? It is making an attempt to portray an aspect of the Great War that is quite frankly neglected in the popular remembrance. How many members of this forum have actually ever been in a (1) Military hospital / CCS , either recently or in the past? (2) Had direct hands on experience of nursing as a profession, and I don't mean as a patient (3) Actually encountered the emotions portrayed? Does it really matter if the uniforms are not that exact, after all it is not a show parade in front of a guardroom, it is a TV programme. I feel in one way, that because the programme does not represent heroics, trenches, references to unit, that many do not think that it matters. Maybe we should all do a bit of retrospective thinking on the subject of the programme, what do we actually think that it would be like? Many of the armchair military historians may think that they have an understanding of military life, either now or in the past, but who is to say that this perspective is actually right. If those who slate the programme have actually done service in a hospital at the hard end, or worked in a army medical unit, I would respect what they have said, but actually how many?

[hillgorilla]

Although I'm reading reviews and aware of the popularity, I'm completely stunned by the attitudes of professional nurses. My main complaint is the appalling portrayal of trained nurses as corrupt, lying creatures, who are willing to submit to blackmail and set aside all their professional standards and integrity to further their personal agendas. A great pity if nurses today are willing to accept that sort of slur on their profession, or maybe just total ignorance of what life and work meant for nurses at that time.

Sue

Are we afraid of saying that these things went on, in order to be a proficient profession, there is the need for self reflection. Actually, what did life and work mean to nurses in the Great War, like everyone else they were still human. To be honest, how can a programme portray a subject if it does not look beyond the nurses as angels.

[CarylW]

.....

How many members of this forum have actually ever ....

(2) Had direct hands on experience of nursing as a profession, and I don't mean as a patient .......

Members posting in this thread? About four of us that I know of. Sue Light was a military nurse.

[Stoppage Drill]

How many members of this forum have actually ever been in a (1) Military hospital / CCS , either recently or in the past?

Must be quite a few of us, on several occasions.

[phil andrade]

Abandon all pretence at being one of the cognoscenti, join the distracted multitude, and enjoy the programme for what it is : a soap opera.

Phil (PJA)

[Sue Light]

In what way is it so far from unrealistic? It is making an attempt to portray an aspect of the Great War that is quite frankly neglected in the popular remembrance. How many members of this forum have actually ever been in a (1) Military hospital / CCS , either recently or in the past? (2) Had direct hands on experience of nursing as a profession, and I don't mean as a patient (3) Actually encountered the emotions portrayed? Does it really matter if the uniforms are not that exact, after all it is not a show parade in front of a guardroom, it is a TV programme. I feel in one way, that because the programme does not represent heroics, trenches, references to unit, that many do not think that it matters. Maybe we should all do a bit of retrospective thinking on the subject of the programme, what do we actually think that it would be like? Many of the armchair military historians may think that they have an understanding of military life, either now or in the past, but who is to say that this perspective is actually right. If those who slate the programme have actually done service in a hospital at the hard end, or worked in a army medical unit, I would respect what they have said, but actually how many?

Are we afraid of saying that these things went on, in order to be a proficient profession, there is the need for self reflection. Actually, what did life and work mean to nurses in the Great War, like everyone else they were still human. To be honest, how can a programme portray a subject if it does not look beyond the nurses as angels.

For the past twelve years I've researched military nurses in great depth. I've written extensively on the web and given public talks, all of which take particular care to dispel any myths that nurses were either angels or heroines. I believe that to hold nurses up as 'angels' is to dismiss the human courage and frailty that they displayed and that truth is all important. I'm a trained nurse and midwife with more than forty years experience including some years as a nursing sister in the British Army. I have a brain crammed full of knowledge about Great War nurses; I spend some time every day researching them; they are my passion and my driving force. And arrogant as it sounds, I'm probably one of only a handful of people in the UK who know the intimate details of every aspect of their lives and work. I meet your criteria, and feel qualified to offer an opinion.

Your first question was 'in what way is it so far from unrealistic?' I think you're the one who's short on knowledge.

Sue

(Never anonymous; website link below for anyone who want to know more)

[Guest]

Abandon all pretence at being one of the cognoscenti, join the distracted multitude, and enjoy the programme for what it is : a soap opera.

Phil (PJA)

Is that what the BBC would like us to do, and is it only a coincidence that it is being aired one hundred years after the start of the Great War? It's the BBC who should abandon all pretence and market the programme for what it is : a soap opera?

Mike

[CarylW]

Quite. The BBC hyped it up as 'ground breaking drama' or 'This gripping drama presents one of the Great War's untold stories'.

As far as this programme is concerned, the story remains untold.