The Crimson Field - BBC drama series

[Georgecf]

I suppose we have to remember that this is fiction and TV fiction at that. Yes, it is annoying to those of us who have spent a long time researching these things to see the wrong salute, wrong uniform (e.g. why were the QAIMNS sisters wearing purple and not scarlet especialy when the costume desgner admitted to using her Grandmother's tippet as a template, whcih was clearly scarlet?) Ginger made a good point that people will look at programmes such as this and think these details are correct. It's easier than actually doing the research. I'm not sure how we would ever change that unless the TV comapnies actually start listening to the experts.

Anyway, as a fictional story, aimed at the majority of the UK populous rather than those of us who 'know' it will be very appealing. As has already been said it did show the mundane.

As for the somewhat liberated young VAD not being representative, that may be true and I suspect the makers are trying to appeal to modern young women. That it is somewhat unlikely probably hasn't even occurred to them.

If you're going to watch it, then I think you just have to accept it as TV drama. If you want an historically and militarially accurate portrayal of life in a tented hospital then it is not going to show that. It's not a docu-drama. Best not watch it then if you can't stand the inaccuracies. I find if I take my brain out I can quite enjoy these things. A glass or two of wine also helps! But sometimes, they just annoy the hell out of me too.

Oh, and yes you can get Gas Gangrene infections of the lung. It's known more commonly as pulmonary gangrene. But it's not common. Usually follows a severe lung infection, carcinoma, TB rather than be associated with wounds. It ddin't give clinical details so I can only guess why the bloke had it.

[Bernard_Lewis]

I suspect that making the TV drama people embrace total accuracy in facts is a bit like juggling jelly. They typically go for effect with a nod to accuracy. I watched it as drama and it was so-so. I've certainly seen worse high profile crime dramas etc. based on the first episode.

On a second tack an Antiques Roadshow 'expert' yesteray told the family of a Lusitania survivor that it was that dastardly act that brought America into the war. The US must have a very slooooow declaration of war process, then...

Bernard

[catfishmo]

Sadly these people will not take the time to find out otherwise, whatever they see on the box in the corner is true, it’s on the television after all.

The assumption here is that "Oh, if you will just spend a few hours researching, you would know what really happened," as if a few hours and a few books will get you the info you need. The primary goal of the people making the show (and people like me writing fiction) is to create a form of entertainment with historical instruction being secondary. There are hundreds of things that go into the production of the entertainment, research being one of them. If it is just as easy to get it right as wrong, many (not all) will opt to get it right IF THEY CAN FIND OUT WHAT WAS RIGHT in a timely manner.

When I began researching, I thought I could spend a few days online, read a few books and find out what I needed... not so easy. I have read a dozen books/diaries and spent at LEAST 3 hours a day online for 3 months researching and there are still many unanswered questions. It so happens that the topic has captivated me and I am enjoying the research so I continue to dig. Other researchers are probably not willing to do so much. Conversely, I suspect WW1 is a hobby or perhaps a passion of most who frequent this forum. The answers I spend hours digging for many of you know off the top of your head. I am only suggesting that, if one is willing to spend the time and come here and post a general criticism of the show, offer some fact and instruction in return. If you want entertainers to get it right, help make it easier for us.

Respectfully,

~Ginger

[Guest]

Not all good fiction writers have to be absolute experts on the subject they are writing about, but they have to make an effort, and then get a 'real expert' to go over it, and pay heed to their concerns/corrections?

I'm sure most of us here would be rubbish at writing fiction, but if we had a go, I bet we would pay heed to a real fiction writers opinion.

Mike

[Georgecf]

From a purely drama point of view, I actually quite enjoyed this. OK, don't all shout at me. But I did. I understand what Ginger is saying about the difficulty of research etc. She's right and it's very easyfor us to get all high and mighty about it. However, having said that there were some very fundamental errors in last night's drama, that wouldn't have needed an awful lot of research. Tippet colour for one, although I'm beginning to wonder now if that was done on purpose as the costume designer admitted to changing the colour of the VAD dress so that it didn't look too drab! Maybe she likes purple, or is it just my television? Salutes were another thing. Surely the BEEB had military advisers? These things aren't hard to find. Other details of military etiquette and dress in the Great War might be.

Also, I must work out how to spell check my posts as my last one was full of typos due to an acute attack of sausage fingeritis!

[fellop]

Hi Ginger,

I think you may have misunderstood the intention of my last sentence. Sadly some people will not bother to find anything out for themselves because, they may see no requirement to do so as some believe that whatever they see or are told on television is true and not that they should take the time to question it.

My point with my perhaps somewhat rambling post was, if the Crimson Fields is a fictional drama then perhaps we are being slightly unfair here nit picking the minor or perhaps not so minor faults or errors, it is fiction. However had the Crimson Fields had been claimed or otherwise advertised to be a factual historical documentary/drama then fair enough and it’s open season on the producers, writers and anyone else we can think of.

It is a pity that they did take the time, we are told, to seek advice from experts then for whatever reason chose to ignore or otherwise deviate from any information or advice if only for wasting the time of the experts.

Regards

Peter

[SiegeGunner]

I share all of the misgivings expressed here and in previous threads about WW1 'drama' productions, but has there ever been a feature film, TV series, or even 'documentary' about either of the world wars (or indeed any other subject) that was entirely flawless in regard to all aspects of accuracy?

[Guest danbert]

Hi,

I've always been more interested in aspects in WW2 rather than WW1, however recently I've become more interested in this conflict especially after tagging a number of diaries in the on-going 'Operation War Diary' project. I would never profess to being an 'expert' but I would make the following generalised observations.

Drama productions like the 'Crimson Fields' are entertainment and placed in the slot it is, is expected to get 'respectable' ratings. Cost of productions like this will always have a limiting factor in what can be accommodated with regard to authentic 'props'. The majority of viewers would not be expected to have much prior knowledge and therefore will not be likely to spot discrepancies.

Having stated the above, I do however believe that the onus on the production team should be to ensure that historical dramas are factually correct. This is particularly important in this case as the BBC are trailing this drama as part of their WW1 season thereby implying it is 'correct' . Too many people accept what they see on tv or in films as the 'truth'. To salute correctly, wear uniform correctly and make beds in the correct manner will not add to the cost of the production and so to get these wrong smacks of either a shoddy or an uncaring approach.

Good tv programmes should not only be entertaining but should also be educational. A TV mini-series such as 'Band of Brothers' was acclaimed partially as a result of the production team ensuring a high level of accuracy in uniforms, equipment, etc.

[Steven Broomfield]

Every day is a learning day here on the GWF. Thank you Steven.

Lucky her/you.

I didn't know the bit about the hatless Household Cavalry.

I suspect, however, I have learned something useful. You may, all in all, not have.

Oh Steven , so young

No need for sarcasm.

[slick63]

The one failing for me and it is quite a big one, was that the plot didn`t seem to have any relevance to the time or the subject matter.

I`ll sit and watch Call of the Midwife with the mrs and at least the plot revolves for the most part around the ladies carrying out their profession, covering some technical and social aspects of the time.

In Crimson I saw neither, you could transpose the characters into modern day costumes and put them in a factory or a pub and there wouldn`t be a great deal of difference. The plot seemed to revolve around personality clashes, hidden pasts, and a bit of rebelliousness. They didn`t even seem to brush onto the technical aspects of nursing or the horrendous wounds caused by modern warfare.

In various diaries the one thing that comes across is the nurses dedication amongst trying circumstances, the constant long hours, and the sheer exhaustion caused by the workload. But then maybe that would be boring to a lot of TV viewers.

[ianw]

The annoying thing is that with care and respect to the subject, this could have been both good history and one of the dramatic jewels in the BBC Great War season. To miss these marks so totally is an utter dereliction of duty in the centenary year. Still very cross about it.

[maxi]

As I adore the actress Oona Chaplin, I tuned in tonight and found myself watching Emergency Ward Ten crossed with Doctor in the House in (inaccurate) fancy dress, and despite one nurse doing a fair impression of Joyce Grenfell i didn't laugh once! This comedy is worse than The Walshes.

The bit that did tickle me was the continuity announcer who warned the viewer that this programme contains some upsetting scenes!

It is a comedy isn't it?

No?

God it's worse than I thought.

Maxi

[slick63]

It is a comedy isn't it?

Maxi

I did chuckle once when the matron admonished one of the nurses with the line "You are incorrectly dressed". The one bit of factual information they got correct.

[auchonvillerssomme]

In the early 1980's there was a short TV play based on the casualty reception area of the Military Wing, Musgrave Park Hospital in Belfast. This was a tiny unit and at any time there were only an RAMC Sergeant, Corporal and Lance Corporal, when the play was shown I was the real life L/Cpl. It was in no way a true to life depiction but I often think about how we will be perceived in the future if it is re-shown. If anyone can find a copy I would be interested, I've searched youtube.

[Stoppage Drill]

I find it difficult to believe that no-one involved in the production of 'Crimson Field' knew this. I'm also fed up of military characters in BBC dramas saluting while bareheaded, which we shall no doubt see in this show as well.

Has anyone said "Front and Centre" yet ?

[CarylW]

It doesn't have to be! Future people researching WW1 nurses will watch this program as a means to educate themselves. Unless someone points out SPECIFIC inaccuracies, they won't know what was wrong. You guys on here are experts. Share your expertise! I would like to invite (beg!) you to be very specific in what your quibbles are but ALSO tell how it should have been--and provide detail and (ideally) references to primary sources.

Trust me....As someone who is researching WW1 to use as the backdrop for entertainment, getting it right is not easy. We look to people like you for help. If you just say "it was drivel" that doesn't help me do any better than this show.

...........!

Hello Ginger

I've only just caught up with the thread. I think I'm the only one who posted that I thought the programme was 'drivel'. Utter drivel in fact - in my opinion. I'm sorry if you found that unhelpful but I was too horrified at the time to write anything else. I'm not an expert but I did post about the wrong colour uniform capes of the nursing sisters and matron earlier in this (merged) thread. Perhaps I should explain my 'utter drivel' comment - it wasn't so much the historical inaccuracies of uniform that annoyed me, it was way beyond that. The plot, the clichéd characters, and the storyline were all abysmal. It was excruciatingly painful to watch and I felt extremely irritated at the end of it. Yes, I have an off switch and it was my choice to watch it but since I'd made critical comment here prior to the showing, it was probably only fair to watch to see if it had any redeeming factors - it didn't! I see that you live in the US so if you haven't watched it yet and you do at some point perhaps you'll understand and all credit to you for wanting to get everything right yourself with your own writing.

I'm not watching any more - unless aliens land and suck out my brains - and after this would prefer not to think or post about it ever again.

Gibbo here's another clichéd character to add to your list - glamorous nurse who gently mops the brow/lips of a fevered patient - because that's what nursing is all about isn't it. With a fine cast of good actors it should have been good. What a wasted opportunity to produce something worthwhile.

[Steven Broomfield]

Incidentally, Mrs Broomfield, having watched it, commented that it was worse then The Three Musketeers which had occupied the same slot previously, and which was also massively hyped. That is quite some damnation.

As a comparison, of course, I suspect the historical accuracy of 17th century French swashbucklers would be expected to be lower than ah historical recreation of early 20th century drama.

I think "Drivel" is a frightfully well-chosen word, perceptive, kindly and, above all, accurate.

[martin_sole]

Well I enjoyed it.

I'd hazard a guess that the decision to not use red in the uniforms was a conscious choice rather than error.

Primary colours give production and costume designers all sorts of headaches, as it draws the eye. Fine when the eye should be drawn, not fine when it shouldn't.

It's a similar rationale to why actors all have perfect teeth, even in period dramas where pearly whites would be inaccurate in almost every adult.

No point in good script and performance if all anyone is looking at are a shocking set of gnashers. It's a tradeoff of accuracy over getting the story accross.

Having nurses in uniform for the channel crossing would imply to a viewer that they were already inducted (or whatever it's called) rather than newbies.

The sound department would also require every "soldier" to have rubber or leather soles to cut down on extraneous noise for interior scenes and other places where hobnails would be a racket.

Seeing the sole in shot is a gaffe, but could well be the fault of the director suddenly deciding he wanted something that the costume dept. hadn't been briefed on.

Without understanding the mechanics of production and the way in which drama script is written these days, it's all too easy to assume laziness or ignorance when you see things that are wrong.

I also didn't hear the phrase "field hospital" in the programme.

[SFayers]

Well at least I now know what to do should I happen to find some discarded amputated toes in the wash!

[squirrel]

Well I enjoyed it.

I'd hazard a guess that the decision to not use red in the uniforms was a conscious choice rather than error.

Primary colours give production and costume designers all sorts of headaches, as it draws the eye. Fine when the eye should be drawn, not fine when it shouldn't.

It's a similar rationale to why actors all have perfect teeth, even in period dramas where pearly whites would be inaccurate in almost every adult.

No point in good script and performance if all anyone is looking at are a shocking set of gnashers. It's a tradeoff of accuracy over getting the story accross.

Having nurses in uniform for the channel crossing would imply to a viewer that they were already inducted (or whatever it's called) rather than newbies.

The sound department would also require every "soldier" to have rubber or leather soles to cut down on extraneous noise for interior scenes and other places where hobnails would be a racket.

Seeing the sole in shot is a gaffe, but could well be the fault of the director suddenly deciding he wanted something that the costume dept. hadn't been briefed on.

Without understanding the mechanics of production and the way in which drama script is written these days, it's all too easy to assume laziness or ignorance when you see things that are wrong.

I also didn't hear the phrase "field hospital" in the programme.

Then why doesn't the BBC append a note to this effect somewhere? In the trailer, on their website or on the programme introduction or credits?

[Sue Light]

I'd hazard a guess that the decision to not use red in the uniforms was a conscious choice rather than error.

Primary colours give production and costume designers all sorts of headaches, as it draws the eye. Fine when the eye should be drawn, not fine when it shouldn't.

It's a tradeoff of accuracy over getting the story accross.

Having nurses in uniform for the channel crossing would imply to a viewer that they were already inducted (or whatever it's called) rather than newbies.

Without understanding the mechanics of production and the way in which drama script is written these days, it's all too easy to assume laziness or ignorance when you see things that are wrong.

I also didn't hear the phrase "field hospital" in the programme.

So would you be as happy to see a 'drama' based on a named regiment, or battalion, with the soldiers crossing the channel in civvies? These nurses were not 'newbies' - to go overseas they would have worked for at least six months in a UK hospital (or whatever it's called).

And would it be OK to have those soldiers in dark brown uniforms, or maybe green, in case khaki gave the costume designer a headache? After all, who cares about a 'trade off of accuracy' if the story warrants it.

Would it be OK to suggest that as the soldiers in this drama were all 'volunteers' they didn't get paid and had to support themselves while in army service?

There'd be uproar here, there and everywhere. Can I suggest that those here (and elsewhere) who see it as 'just drama' only say that because they know little or nothing about nurses' service during the Great War, and even if they do, it's not actually important enough to them to bother with.

There are many things that are acceptable in this sort of production. Impossible to reproduce a base hospital with hundreds of buildings and staff without staging something on Ben-Hur proportions. But not hard to get the basics right.

Who wants to open the betting on when the first nurse dies?

Sue

[ianw]

There are many things that are acceptable in this sort of production. Impossible to reproduce a base hospital with hundreds of buildings and staff without staging something on Ben-Hur proportions. But not hard to get the basics right.

Sue

I totally agree. It's quite acceptable for the background to be broadly "sketched in" and to concentrate on getting a tight storyline developed.

Your experts can be trusted to help you avoid the technical howlers and good writers can then concentrate on doing what they do best knowing that there is a historical safety net under them.

[MartH]

I would like to see a Hun too, of the Life and Death of Col. Blimp mode.

[simonharley]

To be fair the BBC does clearly warn (on iPlayer) that the programme: "Contains some upsetting scenes." All of them to be honest.

[Old Tom]

I recorded the episode and have not yet watched it. Having lightly skimmed the foregoing I shall have difficulty in keeping an open mind. After many years of watching improperly dressed servicemen (and women) and other military flaws, I will watch this and try to keep in mind that fiction is something to be enjoyed and that TV companies, like newspapers want to attract a large audience, fact is desirable but not essential. I only managed about half an episode of the series made at Highclere Castle, someone referred to it in the thread.

Old Tom