"The Passing Bells" new BBC1 drama series, coming soon

[Ken Lees]

For all the historical accuracy I saw in the first five minutes before I switched it off, the cast might as well have been wearing fancy dress outfits.

Absolute rubbish.

[Pighills]

Rather a sweeping statement to make if you only saw 5 minutes Ken.

I do wish people would remember this is (like so many other programmes discussed previously) a drama production and whilst they try to get everything as right as possible they don't give as much importance to it as they would if it were a documentary.

I know drama and documentary both start with a 'd' but they don't mean the same and therefore you won't get the same.

*sighs*.

[Sue Light]

I do wish people would remember this is (like so many other programmes discussed previously) a drama production and whilst they try to get everything as right as possible they don't give as much importance to it as they would if it were a documentary.

I know drama and documentary both start with a 'd' but they don't mean the same and therefore you won't get the same.

*sighs*.

Historical drama, presented by the BBC as part of the First World War programming should be historically correct - there are no excuses for it not being so. These programmes can't hide behind 'it's only drama so it doesn't matter'. Like other previous programmes I understand the BBC has taken advice for the programme from the most reputable of advisors, but writers and producers are often too taken up with the arty-farty aspects of their work to take accuracy into consideration and choose to ignore them. What reasons are there for historical drama not to be as historically accurate as possible when the right information is readily available? It's entirely understandable that reproducing battle conditions within budgetary constraints is going to be impossible, but excusing simple mistakes because it's 'drama' won't wash. Why get things wrong when it would be so simple to get them right? The BBC has some responsibility to educate as well as entertain.

Sue

[Pighills]

Not excusing anything, just stating the obvious, it's a drama, so therefore it won't - no matter how much one might wish otherwise, be totally accurate.

I wonder why it's ok to accept the lack of funding as an excuse for one aspect of the show, but not to accept artistic licence. Either everything is done absolutely correctly or 'allowances' have to be made.

I refuse to allow silly little annoyances to wind me up when nothing can be done to change them.

[Sue Light]

I wonder why it's ok to accept the lack of funding as an excuse for one aspect of the show, but not to accept artistic licence. Either everything is done absolutely correctly or 'allowances' have to be made.

In that sense I was referring to the building of complete military camps, finding hundreds of authentic vehicles and supplying the thousands of personnel that might appear in an epic 'Ben-Hur' production. That's clearly beyond the funding of the BBC.

It's the 'silly little annoyances' that would be so easy to change, though of course the vast majority will never be noticed by the militarily undereducated TV audience.

Sue

[Pighills]

Ahhhh, but so much can be done by technology now that complete camps and thousand of men/vehicles wouldn't be needed, just a small sample and through computerised jiggery pokery it would appear before our very eyes. Not so very much money then, I think.

As for the silly little annoyances, someone would have to put in a bit of effort then, and that just wouldn't happen.

[ianw]

All these WW1 drama pieces seem to be pastiches really. As such they should be avoided by anyone with expertise unless they suspend their critical faculties.

I watched this one off and on and thought it nice to look at and captured the wistfulness and sadness of youth dragged into this great conflict quite well. but 0/10 for historical accuracy.

I am not sure if I fully support the call for the producers to be held responsible for historical accuracy. I don't know how this could be enforced.

[Sue Light]

I am not sure if I fully support the call for the producers to be held responsible for historical accuracy. I don't know how this could be enforced.

As they spend a great deal of money on historical advisors, maybe it would be a start to take notice of what they recommend.

[ianw]

As they spend a great deal of money on historical advisors, maybe it would be a start to take notice of what they recommend.

Yes, I agree but the producer's word is law. It seems that acting on the expensive advice is "more honoured in the breach than the observance".

Personally I find this strange because verisimilitude does often communicate itself on an instinctive level - when things just seem "right". But I fear when it comes to WW1 that truth is usually the first casualty in any dramatic production (or most fictional books for that matter)

[CGM]

Why should it be acceptable for the BBC to mislead folk? (When the truth is so easy to "uncover" because historical advisers are so easy to speak to...)

CGM

[CarylW]

The programme was shown at 7pm, therefore encompassing a wider audience that may well have included younger viewers - if they were interested of course - so surely historical accuracy should have been paramount if the programme was intended to educate, otherwise what is the point? Would any of the recent WW1 BBC drama offerings be fit to show in classrooms to school pupils learning about the war in the future? What do teachers think?

[Steven Broomfield]

The reason I fell asleep after 15 minutes was simple: I was tired and it was dull. In a series of 30-minutes programmes, the first 15 is pretty important - I need to know what I'm watching and I need to be gripped by the characters. In this case the characters were singularly cardboard (nice teeth, though) and the conflation of English/German was simply confusing. The action moved swiftly enough that I didn't understand it, and the trotting-out of every stereotype possible was annoying.

I was also impressed that all the volunteers were so young, clean-cut and damned good-looking; very different from the newsreel and photographs one sees.

Later on last evening I watched a DVD of the Beeb's production of Shakespeare's Richard II in the Hollow Crown series. It was gripping and didn't seem to have gone overboard on the expenses front. Maybe I'm being unrealistic to believe everything the Corporation produces should be so worthy, but reducing the Great war to a series of stereotypes and cardboard cut-outs does no-one any service.

Finally, whilst I can sort of appreciate that the front-fighter was as much a victim as any, making the British and German viewpoints equally valid also seems a little unfortunate.

[Ken Lees]

Rather a sweeping statement to make if you only saw 5 minutes Ken.

I do wish people would remember this is (like so many other programmes discussed previously) a drama production and whilst they try to get everything as right as possible they don't give as much importance to it as they would if it were a documentary.

I know drama and documentary both start with a 'd' but they don't mean the same and therefore you won't get the same.

*sighs*.

Not a sweeping statement but an indication of the standard. It was a fairy tale, set in the Great War period and therefore of no interest to me.

[Anneca]

For a first episode I reckoned it was a bit dull and drawn out - perhaps the next one might have some action in it, or at least enough for me to give it more attention.

Anne

[Pighills]

Not a sweeping statement but an indication of the standard. It was a fairy tale, set in the Great War period and therefore of no interest to me.

It was a drama, you knew it was a drama, you say you had no interest in it yet still you took the time to watch a very small part if it. Hmmmmm.

[phil andrade]

As a depiction of reality, it was ludicrous.

As drama, it was good.

We watched it after we had returned from the cinema and enjoyed the film about Turner, which I rate as one of the most meticulously accurate evocations of time and place that I've ever seen on screen.

What a contrast !

Phil (PJA)

[Ken Lees]

It was a drama, you knew it was a drama, you say you had no interest in it yet still you took the time to watch a very small part if it. Hmmmmm.

Hmmm? It was a drama (fairy tale). On that we agree. I flicked across the channels and it was just starting. So despite your assumption, I didn't know it was a drama. And it took approximately 5 minutes to realise that it was historical nonsense that I had no interest in so i switched it off. Is that OK with you?

[IanA]

I deliberately avoided it and so have nothing to grouch about.

[Coldstreamer]

its better than what is normally on at that time

[MartH]

its better than what is normally on at that time

That's not difficult!

[slick63]

I think it`s rather sad the way that most period programmes seem to depict the idyllic pre war existence of people. This is probably due to a modern writer`s inability to imagine the grinding poverty, poor housing, infant mortality amongst other things, which were most of the populations lot at the time.

Both Germany and Britain were heavily industrialised, the urban areas were still overcrowded, dirty and insanitary in places. Even the rural areas were 'backward' compared to today. Lack of sewage facilites, communal toilets, cess pits, damp housing, rat infestation, disease.

The 17 year old would have started work at maybe 14, so would be more adult than depicted, although a roll in the hay with some girl is maybe optimistic. The social mores of the time meant that daughters were often more protected than they are nowadays due to lack of effective contraception, most lads were lucky to have held a girls hand by the time they were 17, let alone get up to shenanigans.

It could also be said that a lot of working class young men were poor physical specimens, not strapping handsome chaps. Malnutrition, poor teeth, pollution in urban areas all took their toll.

Some probably joined not only for adventure, but for their first decent set of clothes, first unshared bed, and three square meals a day.

Another point TV seems to miss is the atitude of the mothers. Not only was it motherly love which urged their sons to stay home but the fact that the son was a breadwinner who would look after the parents as they grew older. The workhouse was still ever present for those who could not support themselves, if a son was lost in war then there was a very real threat that the parents would suffer as they got older.

[squirrel]

I think it`s rather sad the way that most period programmes seem to depict the idyllic pre war existence of people. This is probably due to a modern writer`s inability to imagine the grinding poverty, poor housing, infant mortality amongst other things, which were most of the populations lot at the time.

Both Germany and Britain were heavily industrialised, the urban areas were still overcrowded, dirty and insanitary in places. Even the rural areas were 'backward' compared to today. Lack of sewage facilites, communal toilets, cess pits, damp housing, rat infestation, disease.

The 17 year old would have started work at maybe 14, so would be more adult than depicted, although a roll in the hay with some girl is maybe optimistic. The social mores of the time meant that daughters were often more protected than they are nowadays due to lack of effective contraception, most lads were lucky to have held a girls hand by the time they were 17, let alone get up to shenanigans.

It could also be said that a lot of working class young men were poor physical specimens, not strapping handsome chaps. Malnutrition, poor teeth, pollution in urban areas all took their toll.

Some probably joined not only for adventure, but for their first decent set of clothes, first unshared bed, and three square meals a day.

Another point TV seems to miss is the atitude of the mothers. Not only was it motherly love which urged their sons to stay home but the fact that the son was a breadwinner who would look after the parents as they grew older. The workhouse was still ever present for those who could not support themselves, if a son was lost in war then there was a very real threat that the parents would suffer as they got older.

Historical drama, presented by the BBC as part of the First World War programming should be historically correct - there are no excuses for it not being so. These programmes can't hide behind 'it's only drama so it doesn't matter'. Like other previous programmes I understand the BBC has taken advice for the programme from the most reputable of advisors, but writers and producers are often too taken up with the arty-farty aspects of their work to take accuracy into consideration and choose to ignore them. What reasons are there for historical drama not to be as historically accurate as possible when the right information is readily available? It's entirely understandable that reproducing battle conditions within budgetary constraints is going to be impossible, but excusing simple mistakes because it's 'drama' won't wash. Why get things wrong when it would be so simple to get them right? The BBC has some responsibility to educate as well as entertain.

Sue

Have to agree with both of these points of view. Saw last night's programme and will watch tonight also. However, I shall have to grit my teeth or the memsahib will tell me to shut up.

It is a heavily romanticised view of life and war and to be honest, I didn't see much drama in last night's episode.

[Stoppage Drill]

Aye. But we were 'appy . . . . .

[GRANVILLE]

I think it`s rather sad the way that most period programmes seem to depict the idyllic pre war existence of people. This is probably due to a modern writer`s inability to imagine the grinding poverty, poor housing, infant mortality amongst other things, which were most of the populations lot at the time.

Both Germany and Britain were heavily industrialised, the urban areas were still overcrowded, dirty and insanitary in places. Even the rural areas were 'backward' compared to today. Lack of sewage facilites, communal toilets, cess pits, damp housing, rat infestation, disease.

The 17 year old would have started work at maybe 14, so would be more adult than depicted, although a roll in the hay with some girl is maybe optimistic. The social mores of the time meant that daughters were often more protected than they are nowadays due to lack of effective contraception, most lads were lucky to have held a girls hand by the time they were 17, let alone get up to shenanigans.

It could also be said that a lot of working class young men were poor physical specimens, not strapping handsome chaps. Malnutrition, poor teeth, pollution in urban areas all took their toll.

Some probably joined not only for adventure, but for their first decent set of clothes, first unshared bed, and three square meals a day.

Another point TV seems to miss is the atitude of the mothers. Not only was it motherly love which urged their sons to stay home but the fact that the son was a breadwinner who would look after the parents as they grew older. The workhouse was still ever present for those who could not support themselves, if a son was lost in war then there was a very real threat that the parents would suffer as they got older.

None of the above is historically incorrect, but at the same time it is not universally correct. Many of the men and youths who served were strikingly handsome (look at some of the multitude of photographs out there), many were very well fed and incredibly intelligent and carnal knowledge was not reserved for the few. Despite all of the criticisms expressed, having watched the second episode, I for one remain of the opinion the overall production is 'exceptional.'

David

[Ron da Valli]

None of them had a fag on. If Flashman was there I bet he would.