'Our World War' - BBC3 series

[Black Maria]

I just thought that the bloke had been attacked by a squirrel.........

I thought because it appeared just after he killed the German that he had scalped him and was wearing it on his battle bowler, a common practice I believe . I have

tried watching it today on i player but life just seems to short to waste sometimes.

[David Ridgus]

I have tried watching it today on i player but life just seems to short to waste sometimes.

blackmaria

Elsewhere we invariably seem to agree on the merits of books, but I fear we are very far apart in our views on this series.

I think it is an excellent way to get across at least something of what front line action might have felt like to those involved. I have known the story of Dease and Godley's action for 20 years but I was still gripped by its portrayal. I have read much about the conditions inside a tank during the Great War, and I am really looking forward to seeing at least some of that brought to life in the final episode.

Like Steven, I watched the first episode with my elder daughter. Heather is a Great War obsessive with a degree in War Studies but she was similarly emotionally affected. You might say she should have known better, but I am pleased that there is more to our shared interest than just facts and academic accuracy.

David

[NigelS]

...Like Steven, I watched the first episode with my elder daughter. Heather is a Great War obsessive with a degree in War Studies but she was similarly emotionally affected. You might say she should have known better, but I am pleased that there is more to our shared interest than just facts and academic accuracy.

In which case, the programme makers have probably achieved some of what they'd set out to do in the first place: Great War coverage with the same impact as the modern day 'Our War' coverage (or that of 'Lone survivor' as an example of a film based on modern day true events). Technical mistakes & deviations from the true events can probably be tolerated (Zulu has already been mentioned) if it generates interest and awareness (also, for those with an inquiring mind, further investigation) of the subject matter were none had existed before, and I doubt that few viewers - even those at the younger end of the target age range - would take the scenes depicted as being totally historically correct.

Going off at a slight tangent, I recently watched the Martin Scorsese film 'Hugo' (based on Brian Selznick's novel The invention of Hugo Cabret); although the story is fictional it is woven around the true story of the French cinema pioneer Georges Méliès. With my curiosity aroused I then spend a little while reading up on him, so I now know more about him than I did before (even if it was only through Wikipedia!). If the Great War coverage of 'Our World War' , even with its inaccuracies, piques a similar interest in its viewers which hadn't previously existed - even if only in a small way - and allows the war's remembrance to be continued, it can't be a bad thing surely?

NigelS

[Stoppage Drill]

It made me cry too. From about 90 seconds in.

However, Burstfeld, Ridgus and Nigel make sound points.

I went to see a bloody awful production of O!WALW a couple of weeks back. I won't say where, as I don't want to embarrass the cast and crew, and I didn't have to pay for my tickets.

I know what most Forumista seem to think of Ms Greenwood's masterpiece, so I hope not to spark any general discussion of the work here. I'm sure it has been done to death before.

My epiphany came about as a result of the fact that I took a 14 year old granddaughter with me, and I am now engaged in a very interesting correspondence with her about WW1, her interest having been sparked by the production. But how many people came out of that theatre utterly confused and bemused by the references to the French/Lanrezac "Huy Meeting" or the Haig character musing about the King falling from a horse ?

[Black Maria]

blackmaria

Elsewhere we invariably seem to agree on the merits of books, but I fear we are very far apart in our views on this series.

I think it is an excellent way to get across at least something of what front line action might have felt like to those involved. I have known the story of Dease and Godley's action for 20 years but I was still gripped by its portrayal. I have read much about the conditions inside a tank during the Great War, and I am really looking forward to seeing at least some of that brought to life in the final episode.

Like Steven, I watched the first episode with my elder daughter. Heather is a Great War obsessive with a degree in War Studies but she was similarly emotionally affected. You might say she should have known better, but I am pleased that there is more to our shared interest than just facts and academic accuracy.

David

It's a bit like marmite i suppose, but to me none of it is believable (language, weird dress, characters, locations etc) and so i just can't connect with it.

[Sepoy]

What annoys me is they claim it is based on facts, well why not do that rather than create "docu" fiction. The action at Nimy almost worked for me, but it failed to get across any of the real discipline the men would have been under. It was a professional army and not Fred Karno's. As for the "Manchesters", why mix stories? The "shot at dawn" incident took place near Flers long after Trones Wood was taken.

I have studied the Great War for just short of 45 years, and the one thing that has kept my interest going is the number of hugely interesting historical stories. I do not understand why they did not choose something completely factual, without the need to dress it up with slouch hats and helmet mohicans. I cannot believe that it would have altered viewing figures or target groups.

Like Blackmaria, none of it was believable and I could not connect with it. In my view, so far it has been an opportunity missed.

Sepoy

[17107BM]

Iv'e looked at this thread long and hard, and along with others took the observations and comments from my family members young and old.

It has been well recieved by them and myself.

If the chance comes along to own on DVD i will take a copy.

Thanks BBC.

[roughdiamond]

If you read above you will see I have had some criticisms over authenticity, however when it comes to the music and headgear I have no complaints at all.

The authenticity of the millinery in both episodes is immaterial and the same goes for Lt Dease being missing a jacket.

What you have is a 1 hour episode and unless you've watched Mr Selfridge, Shameless or Being Human (episode 2), a cast of unknown actors wearing identical uniforms and almost zero back story (other than Tissensor's Paddy Kennedy) to allow you to identify and therefore feel something for each character, so they've taken the step of "customising" them to make it easier hence Dease's shirt and tie marking him separate from all the OR's and Steele's slouch hat in episode 1 and the use of the woolly hat, fur mohican and goatskin jacket in episode 2. How many of you actually immediately knew the Soldier marching under arrest was Pte Hunt of the goatskin jacket until Kennedy's flashback?

As for the music, how many historical dramas use contemporary music? Would old recordings of "pack up your troubles" etc have added anything? TBH I hardly noticed any of it, which probably says loads about the success of the drama's engagement.

Sam

[Gunboat]

I did watch it again. I tried to suspend my prejudices. I tried to ignore that wooly hat. I tried to ignore the fur strip on the helmet and tried to imagine it was inspired by the picture above with the sacking strip (though why someone from the production company would look at that photo and think - "hmm that chap has a strip of something on his helmet - must be goatskin" escapes me - and cynicism is levelled firmly at the production company not Paul Granger) I tried to suspend some of the hackneyed dialogue (and there was a lot). I enjoyed the scene where the chaplain asserts himself with Paddy by threatening to kick his teeth in. I tried to ignore that the story of William Hunt was misrepresented. I tried to ignore the rather odd kangaroo court. I ignored the utterly unbelievable officer who condemned Hunt to death (and was that another imperial service badge). I thought of Moonrakers.comment when the Chaplain read the Lord's Prayer and thought that was plausible as a means distancing himself from what was happening. I ignored that the chaplain was meant to be Roman Catholic and read the CofE version of the Lords Prayer -and wouldn't it be in Latin? (I'm RC) but accept that is being nit picking. I suppose an Irishman could be Anglican High Church but unlikely I would think. I always thought that on such occasions the chaplains wore clerical garb and not military uniform and at the very least would wear a stole.

I ignored the smearing of the face with mud - after all he had a fur strip on his helmet that made the mud smearing comparatively convincing (but reinforced they were going for the savage metaphor and not referencing the photograph). I did wonder about why before the attack the barrage was creeping toward them and not away from them - but thought no that was meant to be the Germans shelling them.

I really did try and suspend my prejudices and cynicism and enjoyed it slightly more. I was even more of the conviction that the battle scenes were good (as they were last week) but was left asking the question if they could do that so well why didn't they go for that level of authenticity throughout?

At the end of the day I can't excuse it because it was geared for a target audience. The overwhelming majority of us did not excuse the inaccuracies of The Crimson Field or other productions because they were catering for a specific audience and not those of us who have an interest in the subject. A bit more of an effort and we could've had a Great War version of Band of Brothers. It could've been really really good instead of good in parts. I'm not expert enough about equipment to quibble about that or even the historical accuracy - but it does have to have the right feel - and even allowing for the modern interpretation - it didn't feel right for me I wasn't convinced and felt remote and not engaged because I didn't find the characterisation believable.

That said I am really glad they made it and I'm really glad we are debating and I shall be tuning in next week.

[slick63]

The main thing I`ve found in both episodes was that the units came across as an undisciplined rabble to some extent.

Arguing with NCO`s a big no no. Fighting amongst themselves, ridiculous, in barracks or a rear area maybe, but not in a front line position. Rather than military personnel who have gone through a rigid training structure, they seemed more like a bunch of blokes on the piss.

In an era where it was generally felt that those who had authority knew what they were doing, the thought of a private soldier aggressively questioning an NCO`s orders is frankly ridiculous. I can just imagine the scenes in the trenches in the wee hours of the 1st July 1916 if this sort of behaviour was tolerated.

Smacks more of the experience of the Russian army of the time at its lowest ebb, rather than the British army.

[slick63]

Also there has been mention on here that maybe the series will pique some interest amongst the younger generation, and they will maybe try to find out more.

After the last episode I was intrigued by the case of William Hunt, I googled "William Hunt shot at dawn" expecting to find a huge miscarriage of military justice, only to find a totally different time frame and circumstances.

My "older" mind then realised that the programme makers simply made up a load of old tosh, but what what would a younger mind make of it ?

Would they think "conspiracy, hidden facts" etc. Would they ignore the errors and become interested in the "shot at dawn" subject and delve deeper, or would they think that part was pure fantasy and so regard the rest of the programme as such ?

[roughdiamond]

When reference is made to "The Younger Generation" bear in mind many of them have a skewed view of Military executions due to Michael Morpurgo's "Private Peaceful" which was very prevelent in Schools due to his 2 year tenure as "Childrens Laureate".

Episode 2 for them would only reinforce that view.

Sam

[David Ridgus]

When reference is made to "The Younger Generation" bear in mind many of them have a skewed view of Military executions due to Michael Morpurgo's "Private Peaceful" which was very prevelent in Schools due to his 2 year tenure as "Childrens Laureate".

Episode 2 for them would only reinforce that view.

Sam

Sam

Don't be too sure. I taught it to a Year 8 group last year who at the end of the book almost unanimously agreed that although it was sad they understood why he had been shot for refusing a direct order. One student said that Sgt. Hanley may have been horrible but he wasn't asking Charlie to do anything he wasn't going to do himself

David

[roughdiamond]

David

Was that their own conclusion or were they given a broad sweep of information previously? By "year 8" are you referring to 12 -13 year olds at High School?

My Daughter was in Primary 7 (we do Primary 1 - 7 then 1st - 6th year at High School in Scotland) aged 11 when Mr Morpurgo came to read sections of the book to them, it was only later at High School when she studied History as a main subject she got a better understanding of Military Executions. Although I believe it wasn't on the curriculum, her Teacher made a point of covering it.

Her attitude of "poor Private Peaceful" at the time may have a lot to do with the Primary School teacher than an informed interpretation of the book.

Sam

[David Ridgus]

David

Was that their own conclusion or were they given a broad sweep of information previously? By "year 8" are you referring to 12 -13 year olds at High School?

My Daughter was in Primary 7 (we do Primary 1 - 7 then 1st - 6th year at High School in Scotland) aged 11 when Mr Morpurgo came to read sections of the book to them, it was only later at High School when she studied History as a main subject she got a better understanding of Military Executions. Although I believe it wasn't on the curriculum, her Teacher made a point of covering it.

Her attitude of "poor Private Peaceful" at the time may have a lot to do with the Primary School teacher than an informed interpretation of the book.

Sam

Sam

They were 12 to 13. As you can imagine they did have a fair amount of context from me on the war and we watched extracts from documentaries as we read the book on subjects such as underage soldiers, Pals battalions and trench conditions. But as they were only Year 8 I did not overegg it, nor did I try to lead the witness. I have to admit I was quite surprised by their reaction (although children can be surprisingly ruthless in their judgements).

I taught the same group English again this year and we read 'Journey's End' and some war poetry. Interestingly they were much more affected by Osborne and Raleigh's deaths. I asked them why and one girl said that they were doing what they were told but the Brigadier had given them stupid orders and 'it was alright for him as he wasn't there.' We had read some extracts about trench raids and they were astonished that people volunteered for them.

I am teaching them again next year but unfortunately they will be in Year 10 so the GCSE meat grinder will mean I have to concentrate on texts for Eng.Lit. this time around!

David

[jp1885]

Just watched episode 2 on iPlayer and really enjoyed it.

Thought the mohican was a bit silly, but otherwise the inaccuracies passed me by in blissful ignorance.

As per episode 1, I liked the graphical depiction of the battlefield and would be happy to see other battles receiving the same treatment.

Not perfect, but an effective Great War history primer.

[phil andrade]

Some comments about Episode 2....

The depiction of the fighting in Trones Wood in early to mid July 1916 showed the woodland to be intact. I would have thought that the trees would have been smashed and shredded by artillery fire, and wonder whether the portrayal of the wood was pitched to enhance dramatic effect. Were the woods that the Manchester Pals fought in as pristine as that ?

The frequent reference to wounded men being " injured" bothers me. This is a recent development in the media and needs to be addressed, especially in a docu-drama which endeavours to capture the behaviour and speech of the times. Men hit in battle were classified as wounded - not injured .

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

Some comments about Episode 2....

Sorry : double post

Phil (PJA)

[kevmc]

Some comments about Episode 2....

The depiction of the fighting in Trones Wood in early to mid July 1916 showed the woodland to be intact. I would have thought that the trees would have been smashed and shredded by artillery fire, and wonder whether the portrayal of the wood was pitched to enhance dramatic effect. Were the woods that the Manchester Pals fought in as pristine as that ?

Phil (PJA)

The alternative would have been to create a wood using computer graphics, a tactic that receives plenty of criticism. Of course for the sake of realism the makers could have destroyed a sizeable wood.

Kevin

[phil andrade]

Or, perhaps, the woods were actually pretty undamaged at the outset. Perhaps I should google and learn.

Phil (PJA)

[simond9x]

Sorry, very late to this thread. Just watched the first episode which, despite everything that's been said above (and my own low expectations), I really enjoyed. I used headphones (to avoid abuse from the family) and the battle seemed to be all around me.

For those who may be interested, William Holbrook's spoken account of his war (all 10 hours of it, including his involvement at Mons) can be found here.......

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80009128

[b3rn]

I was also surprised by the pristine nature of the wood.

[roughdiamond]

Come on folks! Surely the pedantry has gone too far? yes the woods would almost certainly have been smashed by artillery but let's not forget this was a BBC3 production, does anyone think the public licence fee was going to be spent destroying a healthy wood or create a computer generated Trones Wood to walk through? It wasn't Avatar, the budget was more Rhona Cameron than James Cameron!

Could they have filmed it in a recently harvested forest? They could have, but then there would have been complaints it was obviously a commercially planted forest of uniformed rows of evergreens that had been cut down with chainsaws.

Should they have splashed out for the sake of accuracy in episode 1, dug a canal exactly 20.12m wide (or whatever it was) and built exact replicas of the Nimy and Jemappes bridges?

Imperial Service Badges, Goat skin mohicans, slouch hats and woolly bunnets are one thing, but if they'd filmed the Trones woods scene on a moor on Salisbury plain or episode 1 at a couple of foot bridges over a dry stream bed then there's a source for complaint, but with what they had and the fact the focus was on the human story, for the locations, they did ok.

I should add IMHO

Sam

[kevmc]

Come on folks! Surely the pedantry has gone too far? yes the woods would almost certainly have been smashed by artillery but let's not forget this was a BBC3 production, does anyone think the public licence fee was going to be spent destroying a healthy wood or create a computer generated Trones Wood to walk through? It wasn't Avatar, the budget was more Rhona Cameron than James Cameron!

Could they have filmed it in a recently harvested forest? They could have, but then there would have been complaints it was obviously a commercially planted forest of uniformed rows of evergreens that had been cut down with chainsaws.

Should they have splashed out for the sake of accuracy in episode 1, dug a canal exactly 20.12m wide (or whatever it was) and built exact replicas of the Nimy and Jemappes bridges?

Imperial Service Badges, Goat skin mohicans, slouch hats and woolly bunnets are one thing, but if they'd filmed the Trones woods scene on a moor on Salisbury plain or episode 1 at a couple of foot bridges over a dry stream bed then there's a source for complaint, but with what they had and the fact the focus was on the human story, for the locations, they did ok.

I should add IMHO

Sam

Not good at spotting irony then.

Kevin

[roughdiamond]

Not good at spotting irony then.

Kevin

Very good at spotting irony Kevin, but the post wasn't directed at you.

Sam