'Our World War' - BBC3 series

[martin_sole]

To resurrect the topic of the furry helmet, I today made a call to a lady called Hayley Nebauer, who was costume designer on Our World War - and is also a member of this forum

The summary of our conversation was this:

1. The furry hemet was artistic license, used as a device to identify the character (Danny?) as a wild, non-conforming type. It was meant to echo the punk rockers of the late 70's. The decision to sacrifice authenticity here, along with the use of contemporary music and modern parlance, was to engage a younger audience in the the story.

2. Hayley was aware of the "reference" picture, but was also aware that it was almost certainly a flappy helmet cover. It was not mistaken for fur.

3. The turnaround time between Hayley receiving the brief and the first day of filming was 3 weeks. To put that into perspective, something like War Horse would probably have a lead time of a year or more. Much of the three weeks were taken up with obtaining and reproducing sufficient uniform insignia for the cast.

4. There was no historical advisor. Contrary to popular belief, the BBC are just as strapped for cash as the rest of us.

Now before we have a blizzard of outrage, bear in mind that those are the simple facts. Just because some of us don't like it or would have done it differently, doesn't change that.

[Steven Broomfield]

Martin, thank you for this response: at last some clarity amongst the blizzard of speculation and surmise. I'm merely going to repeat my previous view that I liked all three of the programmes and actually found the challenges presented by the director quite refreshing and in no way demeaning to the memories of those portrayed.

Given the rather fractious thread (now closed) which revolved around this fur mohican, is it possible you could start a new thread to explain to those who took part the answer you have received? I might even suggest it is posted and immediately closed so we don't go down the same blind alleys which had the previous thread moderated and closed.

[Stoppage Drill]

"Sacrifice authenticity to engage a younger audience . . . meant to echo punk rockers of the 1970s . . . "

Well, Martin, thanks for getting the real lowdown on this. I don't think any further comment is necessary.

[martin_sole]

Martin, thank you for this response: at last some clarity amongst the blizzard of speculation and surmise. I'm merely going to repeat my previous view that I liked all three of the programmes and actually found the challenges presented by the director quite refreshing and in no way demeaning to the memories of those portrayed.

Given the rather fractious thread (now closed) which revolved around this fur mohican, is it possible you could start a new thread to explain to those who took part the answer you have received? I might even suggest it is posted and immediately closed so we don't go down the same blind alleys which had the previous thread moderated and closed.

Could the moderators merge it into the existing closed thread?

I'm leery of violating the forum guidelines - hell, my paranoia has already convinced me that half of the sins on the "etiquette" thread are aimed squarely at me...

[Moonraker]

Thanks to Martin and to Hayley for this explanation. (I wonder if it will find its way, perhaps by courtesy of members of the GWF who also belong to them, to the two other forums to which I linked in post 31 of the other, closed, thread?) I can imagine the problems of having such a short time - three weeks - in which to work.

Enough said on this particular theme of the fur, I think. Some, perhaps including the mods, would say too much has already been said.

Moonraker

[stitchesoncelluloid]

Thank you for getting in touch Martin, and for all of you for your comments and thoughts on the series. While I appreciate that you'll never have everyone love a film you work on/ make, it is always wonderful to read the comments of those who did and to consider the opinions of those who didn't. Admittedly, I have been quietly watching the discussion boards here (as have a number of the filmmakers) and thinking about all that has been said.

Indeed in making OWW, the tone and characterization of the episodes was very important to us all. The directors Bruce and Ben really wanted the young audience to feel what it must have been like, so it was important to capture their attention - if there are more people who begin understand and take an interest in such important moments in history because the tone and style was something that engaged them, then that is a good thing.

In choosing to reference that famous image from the Somme in 1916 with a piece of goatskin from an old coat, I wasn't hoping to give a deliberate late 70s punk look, but more to give the character 'Andy' a feeling of rebellion that the younger audience would identify and understand.

I was helped by some wonderful people when I first joined this forum too, who I would like to thank again for their thoughts and time - in particular, forum member FROGSMILE who took time to answer my questions by phone or email whenever I asked him about something I couldn't find a clear or satisfactory answer about. We (TV and filmmakers) often have so little time to research and prepare for productions; it is so VERY helpful when knowledge is shared by those who are more familiar with the subject matter, such as yourselves. So thank you to those of you who do take the time to share the wealth of what you know.

Very Best,

Hayley Nebauer - Costume Designer for 'Our World War' - episodes 1 & 2.

[Gunboat]

Thank you for getting in touch Martin, and for all of you for your comments and thoughts on the series. While I appreciate that you'll never have everyone love a film you work on/ make, it is always wonderful to read the comments of those who did and to consider the opinions of those who didn't. Admittedly, I have been quietly watching the discussion boards here (as have a number of the filmmakers) and thinking about all that has been said.

Indeed in making OWW, the tone and characterization of the episodes was very important to us all. The directors Bruce and Ben really wanted the young audience to feel what it must have been like, so it was important to capture their attention - if there are more people who begin understand and take an interest in such important moments in history because the tone and style was something that engaged them, then that is a good thing.

In choosing to reference that famous image from the Somme in 1916 with a piece of goatskin from an old coat, I wasn't hoping to give a deliberate late 70s punk look, but more to give the character 'Andy' a feeling of rebellion that the younger audience would identify and understand.

I was helped by some wonderful people when I first joined this forum too, who I would like to thank again for their thoughts and time - in particular, forum member FROGSMILE who took time to answer my questions by phone or email whenever I asked him about something I couldn't find a clear or satisfactory answer about. We (TV and filmmakers) often have so little time to research and prepare for productions; it is so VERY helpful when knowledge is shared by those who are more familiar with the subject matter, such as yourselves. So thank you to those of you who do take the time to share the wealth of what you know.

Very Best,

Hayley Nebauer - Costume Designer for 'Our World War' - episodes 1 & 2.

Hayley

Whatever my views about the feel of the programme and my comments about the controversial strip of goatskin - having read that you had such a limited period of time to fulfil the brief I am absolutely stunned by how well you did.

Congratulations!!

[stitchesoncelluloid]

Hayley

Whatever my views about the feel of the programme and my comments about the controversial strip of goatskin - having read that you had such a limited period of time to fulfil the brief I am absolutely stunned by how well you did.

Congratulations!!

That is very kind, thank you! I'll not let on about some of the little tricks my team and I used when I couldn't source everything we needed in time (or budget) ... let's just say that some of the insignia wasn't made out of brass! ;-)

[MacNeil]

The writer's thoughts of Our World War.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/writersroom/posts/Creating-Our-World-War-for-BBC-three

[GRANVILLE]

Hayley,

Thank you for 'going public' and I think you will see that for whatever criticisms were raised, there was also many congratulations to all concerned for a job well done (all three programmes). Out of curiosity, having gone through the process now, if you had an opportunity to produce something like this over again, what if any, difference in approach might you adopt to the subject?

David

[bradley]

fwiw

i really enjoyed the the broadcasts so far

the fighting scenes bring it all home,the ferocity and the reality of the fighting are right there

the noise and the chaos,the you or me scenario

all the modern takes on aspects of the filming work for me as well

well done

[jf42]

Thank you for getting in touch Martin, and for all of you for your comments and thoughts on the series. While I appreciate that you'll never have everyone love a film you work on/ make, it is always wonderful to read the comments of those who did and to consider the opinions of those who didn't. Admittedly, I have been quietly watching the discussion boards here (as have a number of the filmmakers) and thinking about all that has been said.

Indeed in making OWW, the tone and characterization of the episodes was very important to us all. The directors Bruce and Ben really wanted the young audience to feel what it must have been like, so it was important to capture their attention - if there are more people who begin understand and take an interest in such important moments in history because the tone and style was something that engaged them, then that is a good thing.

In choosing to reference that famous image from the Somme in 1916 with a piece of goatskin from an old coat, I wasn't hoping to give a deliberate late 70s punk look, but more to give the character 'Andy' a feeling of rebellion that the younger audience would identify and understand.

I was helped by some wonderful people when I first joined this forum too, who I would like to thank again for their thoughts and time - in particular, forum member FROGSMILE who took time to answer my questions by phone or email whenever I asked him about something I couldn't find a clear or satisfactory answer about. We (TV and filmmakers) often have so little time to research and prepare for productions; it is so VERY helpful when knowledge is shared by those who are more familiar with the subject matter, such as yourselves. So thank you to those of you who do take the time to share the wealth of what you know.

Very Best,

Hayley Nebauer - Costume Designer for 'Our World War' - episodes 1 & 2.

Very interesting to hear Ms Nebauer's account- and the limitations she was working with. Plucky of her to raise her head above the parapet.

However, I am moved to say for those that feel the series has done justice to the subject, I have two thoughts. Exactly how much respect did the commissioners have for the men of the Great War to give the programmes so little run up time, with a costume designer given three weeks prep time, 'going' so late that events of summer have to be filmed in winter.

Do we assume this the best the BBC is going to offer? 'Worthy attempt but could have done better' hardly seems fitting. Or do we hope it was simply a cheap taster for better fare to come? 'No historical advisor' says it all.

(By the way, having the Army involved promises nothing. The Army in my experience is generally brilliant at folkore and rubbish at history).

Secondly, the directors may laudably have wanted to connect with younger audiences but why should mean that the young aren't able to engage with a telling that is truthful and authentic, an approach that would have helped them understand that the soldiers were young men like any other but also young men of another era- an era whose different mores not only led to the war happening in the first place but which also enabled young men- as well as old sweats (and, by the way, where were the NCOS?)- to demonstrate the discipline, professionalism and simple courage which enabled the BEF of 1914 to survive Mons and the ensuing retreat.

As far as doing a disservice to the men who were there is concerned, I have two thoughts. Modest men all, I am sure, they would have marvelled at their tale being told and doubtless been both flattered and embarrassed that their exploits were receiving such attention. But would they truly have recognised themselves and the army they were part of in 1914? Well, they would probably have been too polite to say.

However, when it came to the caption "The Battle of Mons was a humiliation for the British Army" ( I quote from memory- life is too short) I suspect their reaction

whether kept to themselves or expressed in private

-would not have been so polite.

That was hardly just an error. It was emblematic of a profound failure to engage with the subject both imaginatively and intellectually. How did that howler help the young to relate to the material? How was that respectful to the men who were there?

Just saying

[AlanCurragh]

I've hidden a few comments - either verging on rude, or simply off topic

[stitchesoncelluloid]

Hayley,

Thank you for 'going public' and I think you will see that for whatever criticisms were raised, there was also many congratulations to all concerned for a job well done (all three programmes). Out of curiosity, having gone through the process now, if you had an opportunity to produce something like this over again, what if any, difference in approach might you adopt to the subject?

David

Thank you David,

Like all things people do in life, there are always things you would do differently, with hindsight, but they probably aren't the same things that others might think I'd choose.

Within the role I perform, I can't speak for anyone else's point of view on the series as a whole, only my perspective of having been the costume designer. Like on every production, there were a huge number of things we did which never made it to camera, like all the ID tags I researched and made exactly with the correct specifications, names, religion, numbers, regiments etc for every historical character, none of these however were seen in detail, along with many civilian costumes that were purpose made for a number of scenes which didn't make the cut. If I had known this, I could have redirected my energies in some places and perhaps we could have had more of the B5 boots, as the evil things kept falling apart on us!

My role is to work with the creative goals of the Director(s) and suggest and carry out ideas that fit with their vision. Despite some of the costume choices that were not to everyone's liking, I would still have made the vast majority the same, as the Directors both liked the choices made....including one item that has proved less popular on this forum.

Hayley

[stitchesoncelluloid]

Very interesting to hear Ms Nebauer's account- and the limitations she was working with. Plucky of her to raise her head above the parapet.

However, I am moved to say for those that feel the series has done justice to the subject, I have two thoughts. Exactly how much respect did the commissioners have for the men of the Great War to give the programmes so little run up time, with a costume designer given three weeks prep time, 'going' so late that events of summer have to be filmed in winter.

Although I am tempted to reply to explain the realistic constraints of creating an ambitious production like Our World War with the time and resources available these days, it would be beyond my remit to do so as I would be speaking for the Producer and lead filmmakers and would not want to make statements on their behalf.

I would like to defend them though by saying that in my 14 years in this role, I have very seldom had the pleasure of working with people who are so passionate and respectful of the importance of the subject matter they are working with. While I did join the production with a leaner prep time, this wasn't any reflection upon the planning or preparation of the Producers, but rather more to do with changes with some people who had been involved. In stating that I did not have a historical adviser (for costume), I was speaking for myself alone, not for any of the other departments of the film. The utmost care and planning went into the development and pre-production of the series, with researchers diligently working for many months prior to the shoot, speaking with experts to gather the information needed for the series, from which point, choices were consciously made as to how the series would be produced. The descendants of the real men portrayed were involved before and after the shoot to ensure they were pleased with the tone and representation of their ancestors.

I understand that the contemporary elements of the series may not have been to everyone's liking, I don't expect anything I could say or elements I defend may change that. However, speaking as a filmmaker and knowing how much was achieved with very little, and also how very much the people involved cared about the work they produced, I am very proud to have been a part of the series, proud of the finished films and glad to have been part of the team of those I worked for and with.

Best regards,

Hayley.

[Norrette]

Secondly, the directors may laudably have wanted to connect with younger audiences but why should mean that the young aren't able to engage with a telling that is truthful and authentic, an approach that would have helped them understand that the soldiers were young men like any other but also young men of another era- an era whose different mores not only led to the war happening in the first place but which also enabled young men- as well as old sweats (and, by the way, where were the NCOS?)- to demonstrate the discipline, professionalism and simple courage which enabled the BEF of 1914 to survive Mons and the ensuing retreat.

I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment, JF. The sort of younger audience you describe are already served by the sort of programming that has been shown on BBCs 2 and 4 and sometimes 1 and other history channels. This is an attempt to gather in a new audience, one that had no prior interest in history and who might just be motivated to look into the Great War a little more closely now that they can relate to it and identify with the proponents.

I took a quick look at responses on twitter from youngsters who I think would not normally respond to history and I believe that this has worked to some extent.

[Mudshark]

May I add something to the 'furry helmet' matter? I'm sure that most people on this forum are familiar with the website Reddit.com but they might not know the subreddit called 'Colorization' in which people colourise black & white photos and submit them. Yesterday someone contributed a series of outstanding colourisations of WWI photos that can be found here: http://imgur.com/a/QLv8V Among them is a photo (6 down) of men going over the top which clearly shows something 'furry' on the helmet of the man second from the right that looks very much like what we saw on 'Our War.' Anybody know what it's all about?

[stitchesoncelluloid]

May I add something to the 'furry helmet' matter? I'm sure that most people on this forum are familiar with the website Reddit.com but they might not know the subreddit called 'Colorization' in which people colourise black & white photos and submit them. Yesterday someone contributed a series of outstanding colourisations of WWI photos that can be found here: http://imgur.com/a/QLv8V Among them is a photo (6 down) of men going over the top which clearly shows something 'furry' on the helmet of the man second from the right that looks very much like what we saw on 'Our War.' Anybody know what it's all about?

That's the exact photo I referenced in creating the 'mohawk' on the helmet for the Somme episode. It's been said that it is likely a helmet cover, but for the director and I, it was enough of a reference for to make it allowable for the character.

[jf42]

I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment, JF. The sort of younger audience you describe are already served by the sort of programming that has been shown on BBCs 2 and 4 and sometimes 1 and other history channels. This is an attempt to gather in a new audience, one that had no prior interest in history and who might just be motivated to look into the Great War a little more closely now that they can relate to it and identify with the proponents.

I took a quick look at responses on twitter from youngsters who I think would not normally respond to history and I believe that this has worked to some extent.

npm, I am not sure what younger audience you think I was describing "already served,"as you put it, "by BBC's 2 and 4." I was simply citing the directors' stated wish, as cited, by Hayley, to enable "a younger audience to feel what it was like....to capture their attention." I stand to be corrected but don't believe there any reference to a new audience, only an audience hitherto either ignorant or not interested in the Great War period. I have already said, perhaps even overstated in my frustration, that I think the means they chose were ill-judged.

Clearly, neither I or most of those posting here, were the target audience. I am beginning to see that more clearly now. However, I can only reiterate my concern that the producers and directors, in making the choices we have been discussing, rather than showing the intended young audience 'what it was like,' in an attempt to make the subject accessible (perhaps quite unnecessarily), erred towards creating a misleading fiction that, while referencing historic events, depicted them in a rather condescending and, dare I say it, superficial way. The dramatisation was emotive and many viewers clearly found it affecting. Strangely, that doesn't mean it couldn't be shallow as well.

I just don't believe the dilution was necessary. When I was 11, I found the 1960s Great War documentary with Michael Redgrave's commentary absolutely riveting .* I didn't even need colourisation. Of course, I was a child prodigy with a morbid streak. Perhaps having a grandfather who won the DSO in Flanders and multiple MIDs helped me focus.

(*I was, naturally, outraged at the reversal of footage to have the opposing armies advance in opposing directions. I sent a pigeon)

[Moonraker]

May I add something to the 'furry helmet' matter? I'm sure that most people on this forum are familiar with the website Reddit.com but they might not know the subreddit called 'Colorization' in which people colourise black & white photos and submit them. Yesterday someone contributed a series of outstanding colourisations of WWI photos that can be found here: http://imgur.com/a/QLv8V Among them is a photo (6 down) of men going over the top which clearly shows something 'furry' on the helmet of the man second from the right that looks very much like what we saw on 'Our War.' Anybody know what it's all about?

Some excellent colourization, but the "6 down" photo is the one (in monochrome) that has already been (over-) much discussed in this thread and

this locked one

where some posts had to be moderated.

I wonder if there is anything more to be said about it?

Moonraker

[slick63]

I was so put off by episode 1 and 2 that I didn`t bother watching episode 3, but then I`m getting on a bit so obviously not the target audience.

I have to say though that I`m not sure the "adornment" of historical events is necessary to interest a younger audience. My grandson sat through the original "All quiet on the western front" a few years ago and still remembers it, particularly the final scenes, and he`s a youngster who has a short attention span and has been brought up on computer games.

[Kath]

Quote Musshar:

May I add something to the 'furry helmet' matter? I'm sure that most people on this forum are familiar with the website Reddit.com but they might not know the subreddit called 'Colorization' in which people colourise black & white photos and submit them. Yesterday someone contributed a series of outstanding colourisations of WWI photos that can be found here: http://imgur.com/a/QLv8V Among them is a photo (6 down) of men going over the top which clearly shows something 'furry' on the helmet of the man second from the right that looks very much like what we saw on 'Our War.' Anybody know what it's all about?

Here we go again!

Quote stichesoncelloloid: "it was enough of a reference for to make it allowable for the character"

Rubbish!

Kath.

[stripeyman]

Quote Musshar:

May I add something to the 'furry helmet' matter? I'm sure that most people on this forum are familiar with the website Reddit.com but they might not know the subreddit called 'Colorization' in which people colourise black & white photos and submit them. Yesterday someone contributed a series of outstanding colourisations of WWI photos that can be found here: http://imgur.com/a/QLv8V Among them is a photo (6 down) of men going over the top which clearly shows something 'furry' on the helmet of the man second from the right that looks very much like what we saw on 'Our War.' Anybody know what it's all about?

Here we go again!

Quote stichesoncelloloid: "it was enough of a reference for to make it allowable for the character"

Rubbish!

Kath.

Agreed, Bob.

[Gunboat]

I clicked on the link that Mudshark posted and ignoring the much discussed goatskin Mohawk image I was taken with image 14 because it just proves how photographs can mislead.

Because of you click on picture 14 the marching column of men and expand it - there are two soldiers one at the front on the extreme right of the shot and the chap about two rows behind who at first appearance both look as if they are wearing their caps back to front (baseball cap style) on second glance I thought they were broderick caps and only on the 3rd, 4th and 5th glance did I finally work out that it was just the angle of the shot hides their peaks .

The other thing it did was make me reconsider a thought I had when viewing OWW on Thursday which was that before sprouting a beard the tough scots tankie sported a Zapata type moustache and I wondered whether anyone would have worn such a moustache and the same soldier two or so rows back who looks like he is wearing a broderick cap appears to have just such a moustache.

Had one or two lads in the series been shown wearing caps wrong way round the no doubt we would have cried out but looking at photo it is possible to draw that conclusion

[Andrew Upton]

This is from article I found

In January 2014, ..., during the wettest winter on record, I was somewhere in a wood in Essex. A man covered head to toe in engine oil was grinning at me through driving rain. “Of course, what you’ve got here is your genuine World War I problem,” enthused Tony ‘Tank’.

He was one of our experts who’d brought his own replica Mark V tank to help us film the third episode – but its clutch was buggered. Stuck between some trees, the tracks caked in mud, it was surrounded by very cold, wet and grumpy soldiers, while somewhere outside the wood a few battered Germans stood shivering miserably

doesn't say where tank came from, but shows a photo which for some reason I can't copy onto post.

Bom T

Anthony "Tony" Cooke is the current owner of the terrible replica tank built for The Magic Flute that I mentioned earlier. He was also credited at the end of the programme.