The Crimson Field - BBC drama series

[CarylW]

Sue,

It's not real. It's a form of drama, and like many other forms of drama it requires the suspension of disbelief. You know it isn't true, but you go along with it for the sake of the story.

I think that's a tad unfair as a response to Sue who has spent years researching all aspects of Great War nursing, and continues to educate via her website, by email, on here and giving talks around the country.

Holby City and other soaps are what they are, and haven't been presented as anything other than soap operas. The BBC made extravagent claims about The Crimson Field (see previous posts and BBC site) and it was presented as something it obviously wasn't, 'telling the untold story of the Great War' and included in their Centenary package.

If it wasn't for Sue and others like her - real historians - aspects of the programme would most likely be accepted as fact.

[Moonraker]

I wonder how the escaping German PoW knew that Sister Joan was in trouble - he had ridden off on the motor-cycle before QMS Soper apprehended her? No doubt we're meant to be left wondering whether Sister Quayle's transformation is genuine or assumed - already there have been a couple of unlikely changes in behaviour by other characters. It seemed genuine enough, but perhaps a calculating look in her eye after her latest promise to be loyal to the Matron would have indicated further scheming in any future series.

I understand that the inquisition of Sister Joan was an internal inquiry within the hospital and that she would have had officer-status that should have precluded her being manhandled by NCOs. She appears to have been found guilty and sentenced with no formal court-martial - and with no "prisoner's friend".

I don't have any great problem with this, being willing to concede dramatic licence. But how would it have been handled in real life?

Was there not a reference to Nurse Cavell being shot as a traitor? Surely not?

Moonraker

[slick63]

I watched the first and second episodes, fifteen minutes of the third, and the last half hour of the last episode. I don`t study the war as much as most on here but have read three nurses accounts, all of which were enthralling.

My personal opinion is that 'The Crimson Field' was drivel. The set was reasonable, the acting not too bad but nothing special. The nurses looked as if they had just come from a modelling assignment, not for one moment did they look like they had done a hard days nursing.

We got a brief glimpse of mud spattered wounded, very little in the way of operating tables. The 'wards' seemed to be very unpopulated, and far too quiet for an atmosphere which would be full of suffering wounded men groaning in pain. There was no mention of the medical problems faced by staff in an era before penicillin.

All in all I felt that I learned nothing about the nursing experience of the great war period.

[hillgorilla]

I agree with many of the sentiments echoed here. I saw the first episode and didn't watch anymore. But I think that many of the criticisms here are OTT. It's a creative art form and therefore will not please everyone. Nor should it try to. The target audience is middle England, the majority of people who watch Holby City, Downton Abbey and Coronation Street, Mrs. Miggins who lives in Huddersfield and watches it with the cat on her lap and a mug of tea. It is not the cognisenti, the largely expert and informed subscribers who post here. It is not intended to mirror reality. It is no more insulting to WW1 nurses than Holby City is to their modern equivalents, or Breaking Bad is to chemistry teachers. Get a grip.

I would say at least the programme tried to make an effort and represent an aspect of the Great War, and as the above states , it is trying to appeal to the wider population. If members of this forum have so much problem with it, why do they continue to watch it? Drama and acting is a creative art form, and one which may not be every ones cup of tea, but it is just that. The programme may not fit into what the 'experts' feel that it should be, but what would they have really wanted? Would have what they want really have appealed to the greater population?

It is all very easy for 'keyboard warriors' to sit and slate the programme, producers, actors, but how could they have specifically done it better? The nurses, hospitals and support services did a job in France and other places, which was to treat the wounded and sick, stabilise them for transfer, rehabilitate and ultimately return them to active duty of at all present. The programme has attempted to give the general population a picture of what occurred. Does it really matter whether it is 100% accurate in the whole scope of things. Experts seem to feel that they are speaking for the nurses who served. How insulted would they have really been? They would probably watched it and taken it in perspective. A bit like casualty, holby city etc are done today.

Maybe what may have been better would have been at docu drama, which had a framework like 24 hours in A&E. Then again the experts who speak for the nursing profession on this forum, may probably slate that programme as well. Yes, people have done a lot of effort and work on WW1 nurses, yes they have worked in the profession, but how up to date are they to the coal face of nursing at the moment? Quite possibly not that much at the front line I suspect, so maybe they should take a step back and look at with another perspective. The nursing profession in WW1, will have had problems, they were I suspect not all angels, they were young women with desires and feelings. The programme was also about feelings and emotions. Did no one else on this forum feel touched when the nurse sat with the patient whilst he died, or saw the young soldier with shell shock, saw the father visit his son with a life changing head injury, or saw the emotions expressed by the soldier and doctor with relation to serious leg wound. The programme was about feelings and emotions, which play a bit part of caring for someone, or do the 'experts' feel that this is not the case? If so, I am sorry but their interpretation or nursing is far wide from what it is really like to like to sit there and hold a dying persons hand, cuddle someone when they feel scared, perform an act to make a difference to someones' life. I am sorry, but if no one felt touched, then how can they judge the programme and make judgement on what the nurses / doctors and patients felt. There is more to the interpretation of history than the dry recollection of events, movements, specific uniforms, war diaries, a select collection of diaries / interviews.

If people want to criticise, yes feel free, but take time to think at what they feel the emotions may have really been like. I suspect they would be the same as today, people having the same fears, anxieties and worries when it comes to health, and the emotions that come with them.

Before the keyboard warriors, start to criticise me, and make statements that I know nil about what I talk about . I work in a 'frontline' aspect of healthcare, and have many years experience.

[SilverFox100]

Being somewhat new to reading avidly about WW1 which I have been doing for the last year, not the many many years that a great deal of the forum members have, I have not yet read or investigated anything to do with nursing in the Great War. What this programme has done, having watched all of the episodes,has given me a desire to read about this particular area of the war. I can't say in all honesty that I would have wanted to before this programme. Now I want to find out what actually happened, so in one way, the programme has had some of it's desired effect. Whether Crimson Fields was any good or not is a personal thing for each viewer. I think it is agreed that the BBC should not have presented the series as an historically accurate programme, like a documentary for example, and look how a lot of those have turned out in the past. It was a drama, representing a very important part of our history, right or wrong. A good representation or bad is to be decided by each viewer, at the end of the day we all have the right to turn it off if we are not enjoying it or are getting mad at the inaccuracies, it's up to us. Personally, I think most historical dramas are not as accurate as they should be and this is where the 'license' to dramatise an historical event comes into play. Look at The film Enigma for example, lots of drama, quite enjoyable but historically correct? I know my family and I to a lesser extent enjoyed Crimson Fields. Historically correct?

[catfishmo]

Being somewhat new to reading avidly about WW1 which I have been doing for the last year, not the many many years that a great deal of the forum members have, I have not yet read or investigated anything to do with nursing in the Great War. What this programme has done, having watched all of the episodes,has given me a desire to read about this particular area of the war.

May I suggest two books?

The Roses of No Man's Land if you want a very broad view of nursing concurrently with an overall chronology of the war. For a more specific look at day-to-day nursing by a VAD and what war looked like to her from base hospitals, try Dorthea's War. [My reviews on those books and other WW1 medically related books is on Goodreads here]

I think it would be appropriate on this thread for others to chime in on suggestions for nursing-related books and 'how it really was'. Just be sure to note if your book suggestion strays outside of British experience (American, French, etc). What books do you suggest, Sue?

~Ginger

[Kath]

Via email from the N.A.

http://enews.nationalarchives.gov.uk/MAN-2FS6U-8E3BO1ZKDA/cr.aspx

Kath.

Plenty here.

Kath.

[Steven Broomfield]

Some encouraging news from tonight's Standard. It claims a second series has not been commissioned. The word "yet" is appended before we get too optimistic.

[CarylW]

Scarletfinders 'Read all about it' book list

http://www.scarletfinders.co.uk/9.html

[Hedley Malloch]

I think that's a tad unfair as a response to Sue who has spent years researching all aspects of Great War nursing and willingly shares her research here and continues to educate via her website, by email, and giving talks around the country.

Holby City and other soaps are what they are, and haven't been presented as anything other than soap operas. The BBC made extravagent claims about The Crimson Field (see previous posts and BBC site) and it was presented as something it obviously wasn't, 'telling the untold story of the Great War' and included in their Centenary package.

If it wasn't for Sue and others like her - real historians - aspects of the programme would most likely be accepted as fact.

Sue is not in the same market as TCF. Sue is a serious researcher. TCF sets out to be mass entertainment. They are two different things and you cannot apply the standards of one to the other. You may as well criticise '24' on the grounds that it does not present a realistic view of the work of the security services. It doesn't but its still a rattling good yarn - and that's how it should be judged. TCF is a rattling bad yarn, not because it confuses the correct colour of nurses' uniforms, or that the moustaches don't conform to King's Regulations, or soldiers put on puttees in an incorrect manner. Would it be seriously improved if these technical details were correct? No, it would not. It is bad because its characters are unbelievable, a bad script, and it can't persuade you to suspend disbelief.

I can't see that the BBC made extravagant claims for TCF. If you go to the BBC TCF website, you will see two interesting pages tucked away at the bottom. One is called 'The Real Crimson Field'. The 'real' crimson field? Excuse me - if this is the 'real' one, we can only assume that the other which graces our screens on a Sunday night one is complete hooey. The second is called 'True Stories from WW1'. Well, if this is where we have to go to find the 'true' stories, what is being peddled elsewhere?

[David Ridgus]

The BBC in its desperate attempt to commercialise the Great War by pushing dramas out as representative of history is actually de-educating schoolchildren rather than educating them. It is crashingly irresponsible and very disturbing.

MG

I wouldn't worry too much Martin. I can't imagine there is a history teacher in the country who would use this dreadful programme (historically speaking) to teach the Great War anymore than they use "Blackadder" without a bucket load of context.

Over the years the BBC has produced any number of excellent programmes on our subject which I have worn thin in showing to classes. They've dropped a ricket here, no mistake, but I'm not to going to let it blind me to the great service the BBC has done, and continues to do for the popular study of history in general and the Great War in particular.

David

[CarylW]

I can't see that the BBC made extravagant claims for TCF. ....

Just some of the extravagant claims. ( I agree with a lot of what you've written in your post above from 'TCF is a rattling bad yarn' down)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/crimsonfield/

'Sarah Phelps' gripping new drama presents one of the Great War's untold stories......'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/ww1/drama

Under the heading 'World War One. Marking the Centenary of World War One across the BBC'

'Sarah Phelps' gripping new drama tells the story of World War One's frontline medics - their hopes, fears, triumphs and tragedies. The tented field hospital in which they work.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-26872134

'.....Known as VAD's (Voluntary Aid Detachments) they nursed injured soldiers in the midst of the horrors, often with little or no training or equipment. Now their story is being told in a new big budget Sunday evening television drama on BBC One called the Crimson Field.

Spot the errors. Hardly presented to us, the viewing public, as 'it's only a drama'

All the ingredients were there, it could and should have been so much better.

I'm just repeating myself now so that's it.

[David_Underdown]

MASH was a great series using a field hospital as its location. Though ostensibly set in the Korean War, it was fairly obivous that it was really saying more about Vietnam. I'm sure you could find plenty to moan about in terms of accuracy, but the characters were at least interesting, and rounded. If that could be said about The Crimson Field...

[auchonvillerssomme]

Part of me would like to think that the vast majority of the public really don't care and at the end of the series won't even remember what it was about, but actually on TV the soaps have a huge impact on the public and attitudes. When I worked as a manager with NHS Direct we would scan the listings and TV pages for storylines that included suicides, illnesses or shocking storylines and provide more staff. The phones would be dead for the 30 minutes or hour of the program and afterwards the calls would start, many hundreds of people having been 'affected' by the storyline. In comparison there were horrific news stories that would make your teeth itch that had no impact at all.

[Sue Light]

May I suggest two books?

The Roses of No Man's Land if you want a very broad view of nursing concurrently with an overall chronology of the war. For a more specific look at day-to-day nursing by a VAD and what war looked like to her from base hospitals, try Dorthea's War. [My reviews on those books and other WW1 medically related books is on Goodreads here]

I think it would be appropriate on this thread for others to chime in on suggestions for nursing-related books and 'how it really was'. Just be sure to note if your book suggestion strays outside of British experience (American, French, etc). What books do you suggest, Sue?

It seems almost out of place on this thread to recommend serious reading but ... From the books on the link that Caryl posted, if I had to choose three to give a good overall view of nursing in the Great War (in relation to the B.E.F.) it would be:

Fighting Different Wars, Janet Watson

Containing Trauma, Christine Hallett

More than Bombs and Bandages, Kirsty Harris

Sue

[mills-bomb]

MASH was a great series using a field hospital as its location. Though ostensibly set in the Korean War, it was fairly obivous that it was really saying more about Vietnam. I'm sure you could find plenty to moan about in terms of accuracy, but the characters were at least interesting, and rounded. If that could be said about The Crimson Field...

Not sure you can compare M*A*S*H to Crimson Field. MASH was a satire, billed & viewed as such. Whereas Crimson was supposed to be a 'realistic depiction' of a period of history.

Although, unlike most on here, I did try to put my 'historians head' to one side whilst watching. It was pretty dreadful.

M-B

[SteveMarsdin]

Edith Cavell.

One point that Moonraker has made on another thread is the opinion expressed by the sympathetic hospital commander that Edith Cavell perhaps could have been saved if the British Government had objected and protested more strongly to the Germans before her execution. His inherent argument being that the "British" preferred her to be executed as a boost to recruitment and war fervour. I have never seen this viewpoint expressed before and although undoubtedly her execution was "milked" for propaganda purposes, I don't see how protestations would have averted her execution.

If that is the last in the series I think it has ended with the most contentious opinion of all been allowed to go unchallenged in the programme.

[David_Underdown]

Not sure you can compare M*A*S*H to Crimson Field. MASH was a satire, billed & viewed as such. Whereas Crimson was supposed to be a 'realistic depiction' of a period of history.

Although, unlike most on here, I did try to put my 'historians head' to one side whilst watching. It was pretty dreadful.

M-B

That was kind of my point. You can make a good programme despite it being innacurate, but...

[Gibbo]

I gave up on this series after the first episode, so have no comments about it to add to one that I posted earlier on this thread about clichéd characters. However, I thought that some contributors might be interested in what Sarah Phelps, the scriptwriter, said about writing historical drama in the BBC2 discussion programme on Generation War: Fact or Fiction. The paragraph below is my summary of her comments, with some quotes, from my blog post on Generation War.

Phelps asked ‘whose historical accuracy are we recording?’ Different accounts 
‘put a different spin on it.’ She thought that a drama could not give the 
complete picture of what happened to everybody. A dramatist should tell ‘the 
complete picture of something that’s deeply personal…[Her] obligation… is to 
send [her] characters there and then ask what it does to them.’

[Ghazala]

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

I pay the subscription and cannot find what you refer to in The Culture Section where Sue asked for the link. Could you point me to it please Moonraker.

[Steven Broomfield]

In the TV listings, there is a small correspondence column under the Sunday entry (from memory).

[Ghazala]

Found this in The Sunday Times...

The BBC series The Crimson Field paid lip service to Edith Cavell, but her heroism deserved greater acknowledgment.

Sir, The final episode of The Crimson Field, the BBC series about nurses in the First World War, drew a parallel between a character in the drama and the real-life nurse Edith Cavell. The fictional nurse faces execution for refusing to say where her German fiancé was; Cavell was executed for helping 200 Allied soldiers to escape from German-occupied Belgium.

It is a pity that Cavell’s courageous, caring exploits were overlooked by the producers. She seems to have been included only so that one character could deliver an anti-war, anti-establishment message, saying there is nothing like an executed nurse to “reignite the fervour” and get everyone behind the war effort.

Public outcry after Cavell’s death led to the setting up of the Cavell Nurses’ Trust which continues to support nurses, midwives and healthcare assistants in need. I hope that if The Crimson Field has a sequel, the sense of duty, vocation and

self-sacrifice shown by nurses such as Edith Cavell will be uppermost.

Kate Tompkins

Cavell Nurses’ Trust

[Ghazala]

The character Flora Marshall was played by Alice St Clair. Lord Loughborough, the actresss great-grandfather, found love in a field hospital in Egypt. A first lieutenant in the Royal Navy and part of the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force fighting in the Gallipoli campaign, Loughborough met his future wife Sheila Chisholm, an Australian socialite who was working as a nurse, as he recovered from his injuries.Their love was obviously an instant thing because they were married within a month of meeting, said St Clair.I was really inspired hearing about Sheila. Like my character Flora, she was from a privileged background but there was no way she was going to sit about at home doing nothing.St Clair said she had prepared for the role by reading a book by the Duchess of Sutherland, her great-great-aunt, who was awarded three medals, including the Croix de Guerre, for her work in creating an ambulance unit.

She went to France and Belgium with two of her friends who were doctors and used these ambulances to transport soldiers from place to place, said St Clair. Her writing about the war was so descriptive but I tried not to read too much of it until later on in filming, because at the start of the series my character didnt know what to expect.

Researchers from the website TheGeneaologist.co.uk, discovered that Redvers Oldham, a captain in the Royal Field Artillery and the great-grandfather of Marianne Oldham, who plays Rosalie Berwick in The Crimson Field, was decorated in Egypt. Sir Lancelot Royale, her other great grandfather, went to war aged just 18. To think of him as a kid persevering in those conditions is unbelievable. And if he hadn't survived I wouldn't be here, said Oldham. Its exciting to learn how incredibly brave they were to persevere in the circumstances and conditions they were faced with at the time. When we were filming, we were able to feel very connected to what happened in the past but hearing that someone you are connected to by blood was in the same situation brings it even closer to home.

Dr Elizabeth Casson, another of Oldhams relatives, served as a surgeon during the war. She later established Britains first school of occupational therapy to help those with mental illness as a result of what they had seen on the battlefield.

Hermione Norris, who plays Matron Grace Carter, said she recalled her grandfather Charles wrestling with horrific wartime memories. I remember being four and he was very confused. He was sitting on the kitchen floor calling out to boys in the trenches, said Norris, whose previous dramas include Cold Feet and Spooks. He came back with shrapnel in his legs and shell shock and lived with both until he died.

[Moonraker]

I pay the subscription and cannot find what you refer to in The Culture Section where Sue asked for the link. Could you point me to it please Moonraker.

The comments I cite are on the TV listings pages which presumably are not available in the on-line version? I saw them in the printed version. Of late, there's been a running "joke" (?) about minor errors in TV dramas, with an anachronistic Routemaster bus being often mentioned. (No, it didn't feature in TCF.) One recent observation is that HMS Belfast is a cruiser, not a battleship. as stated in Great British Menu, another concerns the number of spokes there would/should have been in the wheels of the coach in Jamaica Inn.

Moonraker

[BJanman]

Phelps asked ‘whose historical accuracy are we recording?’ Different accounts 
‘put a different spin on it.’ She thought that a drama could not give the 
complete picture of what happened to everybody. A dramatist should tell ‘the 
complete picture of something that’s deeply personal…[Her] obligation… is to 
send [her] characters there and then ask what it does to them.’

Aha, and there lies the problem. (For me anyway) Phelps said “[Her] obligation.... is to send [her] characters there and then ask what it does to them] - I totally get that.

The problem for me is she didn’t send her characters to a place I recognised as a medical unit operating in World War 1. I understand why that wouldn’t matter to many as they wouldn’t notice any errors, but for me it was a distraction. If the BBC had created a drama about Gallipoli and had the British army arriving on double decker buses (because the budget didn’t stretch to ships), all wearing lime uniforms (because khaki doesn’t look good on camera) then it would have instantly flopped. It wouldn’t matter how good the storyline was, or how good the actors were - people wouldn’t be able to get past men running around in lime green uniforms.

So the answer is ‘yes’ small detail does sometimes matter - and it is always going to matter to the person who knows better.

Now back to the real world.......