The Crimson Field - BBC drama series

[Ghazala]

unless aliens land and suck out my brains.

Blimey, I hope not Caryl...

[Bombadier]

Can anybody explain why this is in the Culture section? According to the posted comments it doesn't appear to qualify.

Nigel

[Georgecf]

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.

So was she!

[Georgecf]

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

Exactly. However, with CGI they can create the Ben-Hur effect very cheaply these days (or so I'm told), so I suppose they don't even have that excuse.

I reckon it'll be the prim one. Any takers? I suppose we'll just have to keep watching it to find out??????

[martin_sole]

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

Sue,

Most viewers know that a uniform ought to be khaki, know that they wore uniform when crossing the Channel so yes, there'd be (some) uproar. Most viewers don't know what colour a nurse's uniform ought to be, or what they wore whist travelling. Uproar limited to a handful of experts - and that's an important factor from a producer's POV when she and the commissioners make these sort of decisions.

In short, the programme makers are prepared to offend a small number of people who value spot-on accuracy in order to make a better viewing experience for the much larger number who aren't aware of accuracy gaffes, or may be not that bothered either way.

I'm not saying it's right, but that's why they do it. The assumption that the costume or script departments are ignorant isn't always fair criticism. Sometimes it is, but not always

[martin_sole]

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?

Why would it want to flag up inaccuracies that it would rather the average viewer didn't notice? The experts who who have already noticed are unlikely to accept it as defence anyway.

[kenneth505]

Well, think the wife and I will finally give this a try tonight. I'm gonna keep the list of outrageous mistakes close and the list of cliched characters closer.

It is remarkable how nothing seems to rile this forum up like a bad telly production. I think this thread is longer then the recent discussions of Paxman, photos & interviews combined.

BTW, Hi Ginger, welcome to the forum. When I first dug in here someone told me that TGW has a way of 'getting under one's skin.' Boy howdy, did they get that right.

[kenneth505]

Or perhaps quoting Robert Brooke.

Rubert?

Or this guy... wiki/Robert_Brooke-Popham

[Guest]

Professor helps recreate 1915 field hospital for BBC drama The Crimson Field The University of Manchester

Mike

[Moonraker]

... the list of cliched characters ...

As I've remarked on another (non-military) forum, after more than a century of screen drama what sorts of characters should there be. If they weren't clichéd, would they not be unrealistic?

Moonraker

[catfishmo]

Well, think the wife and I will finally give this a try tonight. I'm gonna keep the list of outrageous mistakes close and the list of cliched characters closer.

It is remarkable how nothing seems to rile this forum up like a bad telly production. I think this thread is longer then the recent discussions of Paxman, photos & interviews combined.

BTW, Hi Ginger, welcome to the forum. When I first dug in here someone told me that TGW has a way of 'getting under one's skin.' Boy howdy, did they get that right.

Please do keep a list of their mistakes and share the specifics (along with details of how it should have been) with me. I have to say, even after all my begging and pleading, I've been disappointed that almost nobody has noted specific inaccuracies and then told how it should have been. <sigh>

Going to read Into Battle by Glubb now and see what light he sheds on the war for me. And yes, TGW has gotten under my skin--in a good way : )

[Guest]

" Please do keep a list of their mistakes and share the specifics (along with details of how it should have been) with me. "

Someone mentioned, that it was inferred that, gas gangrene was caused by gas?

It's a fair question though, and I'm not expert enough on uniforms etc to comment, but if I do spot a howler, I will post, with, if possible, an explanation as to how it should be.

Mike

[Scalyback]

.

Please do keep a list of their mistakes and share the specifics (along with details of how it should have been) with me. I have to say, even after all my begging and pleading, I've been disappointed that almost nobody has noted specific inaccuracies and then told how it should have been. <sigh>

Going to read Into Battle by Glubb now and see what light he sheds on the war for me. And yes, TGW has gotten under my skin--in a good way : )

Can I recommend you read "Tommy" by Prof Richard Holmes. An excellent beginners guide to the first world war Tommy.

With you starting the thread and asking questions of it, what is your reason and background? Are you connected with the programme? Are you writing a play or something else? Sorry to sound untrusting but the begging and pleading does sound a underpinning of a project.

[Ghazala]

Going to read Into Battle by Glubb now and see what light he sheds on the war for me.

This book is reputedly the last book that T E Lawrence read before he died. It was found sitting open on his book rest on his arm chair at Clouds Hill after the motor cycle accident that killed him. The book still sits there today, although not the original.

[eairicbloodaxe]

Just watched this, recorded at the weekend.

I think I was more appalled by the quality of the scriptwriting and some of the acting to be too offended by the historical inaccuracies.

Did notice the total lack of gunfire, however. Strange in a hospital mentioned as being "close to the front"?

We stuck with it though, and it seemed to improve. A bit, anyway.

Regards

Ian

[catfishmo]

.

Can I recommend you read "Tommy" by Prof Richard Holmes. An excellent beginners guide to the first world war Tommy.

With you starting the thread and asking questions of it, what is your reason and background? Are you connected with the programme? Are you writing a play or something else? Sorry to sound untrusting but the begging and pleading does sound a underpinning of a project.

I am writing a Pride & Prejudice variation set during WW1 with heroine Elizabeth Bennet as a nurse, and Darcy as a captain or major. Most of the story takes place at a CCS so involves all things medical--thus my acute interest in this show. Novel will also require my being very familiar with field communications. Thankfully, I found a wonderful guy on here who is going to mentor me through that maze (thanks, Bill!).

The problem I run in to is that there is no 'here is how a CCS looked, operated, who did what,' etc (not that I have found, anyway). It all has to come from reading, reading, reading, until a picture begins to emerge. Even after a TON of research it wasn't until last week that I realized the head nurse at a CCS was not a matron. I still can't seem to figure out what EXACTLY an MO did. And CCS's had a fairly large 'staff' of non-medical personnel but who were they and what did they all do?

I hear apparently there was some sort of protocol in determining what hospital back in the UK a soldier was sent to--but I can't find reference to it anywhere--although I did find in a diary where on the hospital ship the guys were ASKED where they would like to go, implying that they had some say-so. On Sue's blog she made mention of some specific inaccuracies of Downton Abbey--I VERY much appreciated that as I would have assumed much of what was represented was factual.

Thus far, Combed Out and Lifeline have been the best source for CCS environment. Wounded and Dorthea's War were great for hospital/medical in general, and Sapper Martin was a fantastic intro to war. I've read all of Sue's blogs and website, and a dozen other books (partial list on Goodreads here), additional books online, websites, etc. I'm undertaking Into Battle as I hear it has some great info when he is wounded and shipped back to UK.

If anyone has medical related book recommendations, I am all ears. Or should anyone want to volunteer to be my medical mentor, I would most appreciate it. I have made notes on every book I've read, and have my own 'database' with citations for a ton of medical topics. I plan to post it all online when I am done to help the next guy. It is an enormous topic--thus I was hoping to watch the show and see it as somewhat of a model. As I have learned with other WW1-related fiction, unfortunately, it is just not reliable.

Do you still recommend Tommy after all I have read? If so, I'll give it a go : )

[CaroleHope]

It's TV drama aimed at a mass audience who have no clue, and probably don't care, about the inaccuracies. The writer of any drama or novel largely works on the basis that there has to be an element of suspension of belief on the part of the viewer/reader. As has been pointed out elsewhere on the thread some inaccuracies are deliberate because of how TV works in terms of visuals and acoustics. Some of the general criticisms of this drama can equally be levelled at any war film produced since film began. Uniforms were always neat, tidy and clean no matter what the conditions - or even on the occasions that they might become mud or blood spattered they were soon miraculously cleaned up. The same as the actors are invariably clean, good looking and with perfect teeth no matter what period of history is being depicted. It is what it is - people aren't going to watch it to be educated - but it may be that people develop an interest as a result of watching something like this.

[BJanman]

The problem I run in to is that there is no 'here is how a CCS looked, operated, who did what,' etc (not that I have found, anyway)...... I still can't seem to figure out what EXACTLY an MO did. And CCS's had a fairly large 'staff' of non-medical personnel but who were they and what did they all do?

I hear apparently there was some sort of protocol in determining what hospital back in the UK a soldier was sent to--but I can't find reference to it anywhere--

Well I could have answered some of your queries with references to back it up, but I commented on a different thread you started and you didn't even acknowledge it, let along give a thanks - so I won't be doing that again. Someone else commented too but you appear too busy pleading with people who obviously don't want to help, your ignoring those who have shown signs that they do.

Maybe entertainers need to learn to recognise who is really able to help and who is not so knowledgable - a mistake the makers of this awful programme made.

I wish you all the best in your continuing research for you book - I truly do!

[Guest]

Surgery at a casualty clearing station (1918) by Sir John Fraser Cuthbert Wallace

Edit Casualty Clearing Station

Mike

[auchonvillerssomme]

They get their advisors from a list of 'experts' in much the same way that the legal profession keep a list of expert witnesses, in my experience someone who tells people he or she is an expert in a subject is generally is far from it.

[Guest]

in my experience someone who tells people he or she is an expert in a subject is generally is far from it.

There is also a useful IWM film The wonderful organisation of the RAMC Click

Mike

[Chester837]

They get their advisors from a list of 'experts' in much the same way that the legal profession keep a list of expert witnesses, in my experience someone who tells people he or she is an expert in a subject is generally is far from it.

I can vouch for that. I was involved in an episode of a TV production some years ago as a 'professional stand in' (we were the only people who could stand in for the actors due to the fact that we actually did for a living what the actors needed to do and it was a bit dangerous). They had a resident advisor who used to be a professional in the career in question, however, he had no idea of our specialism. An analogy may be an ex school cook advising on how a sushi chef would prepare Fugu. After a bit of time with the costume people ("but he said that's what you would be wearing") we got on with filming. On numerous occasions we were told what they wanted us to do next, only for us to tell them that actually we wouldn't it like that. To start with they would query why and when we told them that someone would probably die as a result, they went with our way. Ironically, after the first morning, the director realised that actually, what we were giving him was better then the original planned shots. For the next 3 1/2 days filming their resident 'expert' was relegated to sitting in the corner of the canteen scowling at us as the production team used us instead to provide the advice.

[Stoppage Drill]

This book is reputedly the last book that T E Lawrence read before he died. It was found sitting open on his book rest on his arm chair at Clouds Hill after the motor cycle accident that killed him. The book still sits there today, although not the original.

Surely not, Gazza ? Glubb writes in the introduction that he "came across" his old diaries in 1975, and that he wrote them up and "The present book is the result".

Publication/copyright history in my copy is cop. Glubb 1977,1978 and pub. Cassell 1978.

Had TE been reading the Grenfell, J. poem perhaps ?

[Sue Light]

There is also a useful IWM film The wonderful organisation of the RAMC Click

Mike

That's a really useful bit of film Mike showing the whole journey through the chain of evacuation. And further to an earlier point, I have a few notes on my website about the distribution of casualties to UK hospitals half-way down this page, though others might have different ideas!

Which Hospital?

Sue

[Ghazala]

Surely not, Gazza ? Glubb writes in the introduction that he "came across" his old diaries in 1975, and that he wrote them up and "The present book is the result".

Publication/copyright history in my copy is cop. Glubb 1977,1978 and pub. Cassell 1978.

Had TE been reading the Grenfell, J. poem perhaps ?

Stoppage, my oracle. Thanks.. I must admit I took this particular story at face value from the Custodian at Clouds Hill. I must be more careful when making quotes with the experts of this Forum without doing proper research first.. Hey Ho!