The Crimson Field - BBC drama series

[Steven Broomfield]

I disagree. I am not one of nature's natural mawkers, but I consider that the Great War, and the suffering it entailed for millions, deserves better than to be reduced to an historical bodice-ripper.

As to whether any of the "millions" watching this tripe ... well, I wonder how many are having their interest sparked, and how many are simply moving on to watch the News bulletin, put the cat out, make a cup of cocoa and toddle off to Bedfordshire with nary a backward glance.

[auchonvillerssomme]

Has their been a huge influx of forum members since the program was screened, this is the most popular WW1 forum on the web.

I'm not sure why members are bothering to try to correct the individuals obvious intentional ignorance of the forum and the issue of women related content, in my experience publicity hungry, self appointed guardians of 'rights', who make no meaningful contribution but unconstructive criticism have no agenda but self promotion.

[SteveMarsdin]

Which is preferable : that one million people be entertained, and have their interest aroused in the Great War, at the cost of ten thousand disgruntled experts ; or that the ten thousand are satisfied in an accurate depiction, while one million people are bored and turn away from the subject of the Great War ?

If the Crimson Field fulfils the first criterion, then it has some merit, in my opinion.

Phil (PJA)

I agree Phil but why should we assume that both "sides", entertainment and accuracy, need to be mutually exclusive.

[phil andrade]

I agree Phil but why should we assume that both "sides", entertainment and accuracy, need to be mutually exclusive.

Someone said :

" Good script makes poor history ; good history makes poor script."

This was an allusion to the David Lean film Lawrence of Arabia ; the speaker was aghast at the distortion, but loved the film.

But...yes, I take your point, Steve.

Phil (PJA)

[Gunboat]

Very interesting debate at the end of Generation War discussing some of the strengths and weaknesses of a series that was in my view incomparably better. The screenplay writer for The Crimson Field was a contributor. Would very much like to see a similar debate about The Crimson Field

[catfishmo]

Which is preferable : that one million people be entertained, and have their interest aroused in the Great War, at the cost of ten thousand disgruntled experts ; or that the ten thousand are satisfied in an accurate depiction, while one million people are bored and turn away from the subject of the Great War ?

If the Crimson Field fulfils the first criterion, then it has some merit, in my opinion.

Phil (PJA)

If it is any consolation, it was Downton Abbey that sparked my interest in WW1. Unfortunately, even after several hundred hours of researching Britain's medical machine during WW1, my knowledge of Downton's inaccuracies is sparse--and what I know is only because I read an entry on Sue's blog. Granted, the majority of my research has focused on the Western Front, but my point is that it takes an ENORMOUS amount of interest/research for someone newly interested in the Great War to BEGIN to see the fallacies portrayed as history on television. And even on this thread, not every person noticed every inaccuracy. Only those whose interest/speciality is uniforms noted those issues. Others with expertise in the war's chronology noted errors related to that. If those 'experts' had not pointed out the inaccuracy, even many of the knowledgable enthusiasts on this forum would have missed the inaccuracy!

When a producer as reputable as the BBC produces a program like this in the name of history, during this landmark year, I don't think it is too much to ask to make it accurate. Or at least 'fess up to the inaccuracies. People will assume that what television touts as 'historically-based' is, indeed, fact.

Early on, I had numerous plot ideas for my novel that now, after research, I find 'won't work' as the original idea was a misrepresentation of history. Thus I have to use some creativity to rewrite the plot to keep it historically accurate. Will it still be a bit of a stretch? Probably. But I won't have my CCS setting 'on the rocky bluffs of Belgium' (I now know the beach there is flat as a flitter, unlike the French coast less than 100 miles south), nor will I have VADs at a CCS, which I was planning to initially.

I don't know much about what makes for a successful TV show, but would it have hurt the show to leave out the term field hospital? Or make the hospital more clearly a general or base hospital rather than a cross between a CCS and base hospital, or have the VADs arrive in uniform? I doubt it. A little creativity in (re)writing could have gone a long way to maintain historical accuracy while allowing them to dish out the drama that keeps folks tuning in week after week. As Steve noted, accuracy and entertainment need not be mutually exclusive.

~Ginger

[phil andrade]

Very interesting debate at the end of Genrration War discussing some of the strengths and weaknesses of a series that was in my view incomparably better. The screenplay writer for The Crimson Field was a contributor. Would very much like to see a similar debate about The Crimson Field

Yes, that might have been almost tailor - made for us.

Wong war, of course, but the theme very pertinent to what we're dealing with on this thread, and, as you say, the screenplay writer for the CF had her tuppence worth of input, too.

The distortion - actually, I would go further and call it manipulation - in the Generation War was, in my opinion, more profound and worrying than the catalogue of silly errors that have disappointed so many of us in the CF.

Phil (PJA)

[Moonraker]

More comments in today's Sunday Times "Culture" section. One correspondent advises that from 1860 to 1916 it was compulsory "for British soldiers to wear a moustache" (???) and cites King's Regulations. There's debate about exactly what sort of hospital is depicted: field, or casualty clearing. A couple of derogatory comments are countered by enthusiasm: "its depiction of the horrors of war and the social/class mores of the time is exemplary. Baftas all round, chaps".

Tonight we are promised "strangulated romance in the woods" for Kitty and Tom.

Moonraker

[KGB]

Generation X? Last episode made up for two previous poor ones. War buffs can look forward to "1864" about the Prussian war with Denmark. It has that Sidse Babett Knudsen in it.

[Sue Light]

More comments in today's Sunday Times "Culture" section. One correspondent advises that from 1860 to 1916 it was compulsory "for British soldiers to wear a moustache" (???) and cites King's Regulations. There's debate about exactly what sort of hospital is depicted: field, or casualty clearing. A couple of derogatory comments are countered by enthusiasm: "its depiction of the horrors of war and the social/class mores of the time is exemplary. Baftas all round, chaps".

Can you post a link to the page please - as much as I look, I can't find it.

Sue

[Terry_Reeves]

KRs for 1912, para 1696, (reprinted 1914) has this to say on the subject:

"The hair of the head will be kept short. The chin and underlip will be shaved, but not the upper lip. Whiskers, if worn, will be of moderate length.:

TR

[johnboy]

The moustache or lack of has been discussed on the forum before. Try a forum search. The wearing of moustaches by OR's was certainly stopped.

[Moonraker]

Can you post a link to the page please - as much as I look, I can't find it.

Sue

Subscription only, I'm afraid, for on-line access.

Moonraker

[Hedley Malloch]

Accuracy, 'realism' and reliability in historical drama series. There's a very good piece in the TV Eye column Private Eye this week, on the 'Jamaica Inn' rumpus. The writer makes some excellent points. These include:

Producers have a large number of balls to keep in the air. These include interest, time, continuity and cost. It may be that a particular sort of field gun used in 1915 needed to be relaid after every shot, but on TV the gun is shown being fired three times without being relaid. Well, showing a field gun being relaid three times takes time, and for the vast majority of the population, it is not very interesting. Why bother?

'Realism' sometimes gets in the way. The audibility problem in JI was caused by too much realism, a concern for accuracy driven by the producer. 18th century Cornish smugglers did mumble and they did speak in dark shadows, depriving the viewer of the ability to supplement the aural word with the unconscious lip-reading we all do. You wanted 'real' - you got it. You as the outsider did not understand it? You were not meant to. That's 'real' for you.

Continuity is important for production. Many of us have the BBC The Great War series first shown in 1964. Look at it carefully and you will see that in those scenes where British infantry are seen charging or leaving their trenches, they always do so in one particular direction either from left to right, or right to left (forget which). Where the original film did not show this, it was reversed to produce this effect. Having all our soldiers going in the same direction throughout the series aided film editing, sound dubbing and script writing. But it is not what happened - it was not real. Does it matter? No.

Similarly finding out which type of gavel judges used in the 19th century, the difference between a naval and a military salute, or the correct way to wrap puttees, takes money. Somebody has to be paid to go away and find out these things. Producers work on tight budgets. They constantly have to make decisions about what will 'do', and where they really need to spend money.

[Sue Light]

Subscription only, I'm afraid, for on-line access.

You assume I don't have the means to pay? - I am a subscriber - it's just that I can't find the page, even using the search facility

Sue

[Moonraker]

You assume I don't have the means to pay? - I am a subscriber - it's just that I can't find the page, even using the search facility

Sue

Not at all! "Culture" is one of several supplements to the main news section and the comments I cite are on the TV listings pages which presumably are not available in the on-line version.

Moonraker

[Sue Light]

That's fine - I thought your original post was referring to the online version.

Sue

[CarylW]

Similarly finding out which type of gavel judges used in the 19th century, the difference between a naval and a military salute, or the correct way to wrap puttees, takes money. Somebody has to be paid to go away and find out these things. Producers work on tight budgets. They constantly have to make decisions about what will 'do', and where they really need to spend money.

I hear what you're saying with regard to overall cost but how much more would have been spent to have the VADs travel in uniform, or to have used scarlet instead of maroon for uniforms of the nurses? It's all in the detail.

This wasn't some afternoon soap opera that not many people would have viewed, it is at a prime-time 9pm slot and presented as part of the BBC's Centenary celebration series of programmes.

I can't fault a lot of the programme. The cinematography is stunning, the tents and huts look accurate as far as I know. The cast of fine actors wouldn't have been cheap and the whole series must have cost quite a considerable amount of money. Overall it looks good, so then after spending all that money (that we the licence payers contribute to) why not make sure that important aspects are historically correct? Mainly though for me it's the writing, script and storylines (as I keep saying) that are abysmal. It could and should have been so much better.

Those telling us that we should just accept it as entertainment, or a soap opera could ask themselves how they would feel if they had spent years researching a particular unit in all it's aspects, or were just very interested in one particular unit for whatever reason, then a much-hyped up TV drama about 'your' unit and presented as part of the centenary celebration package appeared and the uniforms were the wrong colour and the writing so poor that at times those watching wondered if it were a comedy. And then everyone tells you that you should be grateful and it's only a drama.

[Moonraker]

I agree with everything that Caryl says.

If a film shows a British artillery piece being fired, then cuts away, perhaps to a German one retaliating, and then shows the British piece being fired again, it's reasonable to assume that it's been reloaded. If one sees a continuous sequence in which an 1820s pistol is fired three times (or a Western six-shooter fired eight or nine times) without being re-loaded, that's sloppy.

I think that the makers of Jamaica Inn got it wrong with the mumbling in dark places, placing too much emphasis on realism and misjudging its acceptability to the viewing public. I don't want to see mangled bodies, operations and full bedpans and hear constant foul language, which would have added unwanted realism to TCF.

When people criticise stereotypical characters they can be referring to authentic portrayals. On IMDB no-one responded when I asked what sort of non-stereotypes they could suggest. The story lines on TCF have been criticised, and I am not impressed with them, but what others could there have been? Any ideas? Perhaps the series should have had another dimension to it, rather than concentrating exclusively on the field (?) hospital? It could have started in England, with three young women deciding to become nurses, training and working there before going to France. Perhaps it could have portrayed some of the prewar "history" between some of the characters? (No, I'm not impressed with this, either!)

Incidentally, recently I watched a repeat episode of a very popular WWII series, which has a lot of good period atmosphere (as far as I can judge). But there are mistakes, including the worst-worn beret in the history of film (almost as bad as Benny Hill's.) And there are holes in the plots, which draw on typical incidents of the war - some might say that these are clichéd. But it seems to have escaped much criticism - not that I've checked it out on WWII fourms. But the storylines are good and varied, and the three main characters are "strong", and I can't say this about the main actors in TCF. So far, only the Irish sergeant, Matron and the one-eyed major have made an impression on me.

Moonraker

[Gunboat]

Yes, that might have been almost tailor - made for us.

Wong war, of course, but the theme very pertinent to what we're dealing with on this thread, and, as you say, the screenplay writer for the CF had her tuppence worth of input, too.

The distortion - actually, I would go further and call it manipulation - in the Generation War was, in my opinion, more profound and worrying than the catalogue of silly errors that have disappointed so many of us in the CF.

Phil (PJA)

I agree but the worrying manipulation you refer to (and there have been compelling arguments as to the extent of that distortion and/or the motivation behind it) could've been remedied without compromising the plot as played out given that it was portrayed as the reminiscence of one of the protagonists and therefore could have been clarified that he as many other if his generation may've been recalling some of his history through revisionist eyes and/or adding text at the end which clarified the factual situation.

That said it was accepted by all those debating last night that it was a gripping and compelling story well acted with some realistic portrayal of war and atrocities

This is what marks it as different from The a Crimson Field which has an implausible and saccharine plot and is lacking realism and accuracy despite being advertised and promoted and being both.

[Sue Light]

For me it's not really about the hideous inaccuracy in uniforms etc., it's much deeper than that. However much 'research' the writer claims to have done, the story lines simply don't stand up to any scrutiny at all - in reality most of them could never, and would never have happened. It's just not one thing, or one uniform, or the occasional error - it's the enormous part of the iceberg below the surface that's been ignored - the organisation and the administration and the knowledge of what made the nursing service tick that's been passed over, leaving the surface floundering. Examples are so numerous it's hard to even begin to list them and quite honestly when things are so bad I've come to feel that I simply can't be a****d with it all anyway.

Sue

[beestonboxer]

My thoughts on this subject for what they are worth .I am not an expert on any particular ww1 subject however I love to learn what I can from whatever source available. I thought the whole idea of the programme was a great one anything that brings the attention to this subject has to be good however incorrect some points may be, not everyone will pick the bones out of every single little detail like some more experienced members of the forum (I don't say this in a bad way many people have the experience and knowledge and the right to do so it is there chosen subject of interest and expertise)

I am however sorry to see that the drama has not turned out to be not so much a drama but a Barbra Cartland- Mills and Boon. I also think the picture of a field hospital in WW1 has been painted somewhat rosy I am sure although 100 times better than being at the front but am also sure that these hospitals were like hell on earth hundreds upon hundreds of men limbless, faceless , gassed and shell shocked all together I think this could have been portrayed a little better than having some lilly white clean bandages drying in the breeze. Please dont get me wrong not images I am desperate to see but the basics of this programme is set in a hospital during the bloodiest conflict the world has ever seen. Think the biggest point has been completely missed by the BBC.

[BJanman]

I am however sorry to see that the drama has not turned out to be not so much a drama but a Barbra Cartland- Mills and Boon.

Yes, me too! As this programme was part of the BBC History, WW1 Centenary I tuned in hoping to learn something, or at least see something authentic. I really couldn't care less if the sexually deprived doctor gets off with the mysterious nurse, I'm interested in the Great War.

I hope Sue is not too despondent - both history and I need her

[Michelle Young]

At least they pronounced Cavell properly

[johnboy]

Too many loose ends for there not to be another series.