My Boy Jack

[delta]

Thanx Lyndon

S

[nicko576]

I thought it was excellent, my daughter whose only interests involve shopping and nightclubbing, watched it with us, and actually asked me questions about the war, which is no bad thing.

Nick

[Stephanie]

For those who missed it;

My Boy Jack (Click)

Above is a link, click on "Play Video" and it will play on the same page

Steph

[matteyre]

I didn't quite get the time lines in the programme, as it showed the battle to be on the 22nd sept, the day after jack kiplings 18th birthday. This doesn't tally with the Guards Division moving up to replace the 21st and 24th Divisions in the evening of the 26th. In doing this they wouldn't have gone over the top at the start of the attack as shown on tv. Also by this stage Chalk Pit Wood had been recaptured by the germans, so it doesnt tally with where Jack was last seen.

I was looking forward to the show as my grandfather was captured at Loos, probably on Hill 70 when the germans counter attacked, but felt the show was let down by inaccuracies.

[stevew]

I found it watchable.

Not sure about the heroes death part though. The daily mail supplement did a piece on this saturday (I only got for the free dvd) which said Kipling was last seen with have his face shot away IIRC, it also made a big point of the rain and how he wouldn't have seen anything with rain on his glasses, a point that was lost on his (almost) singlehanded attack on the MG post.

[stevew]

I didn't quite get the time lines in the programme, as it showed the battle to be on the 22nd sept, the day after jack kiplings 18th birthday. This doesn't tally with the Guards Division moving up to replace the 21st and 24th Divisions in the evening of the 26th. In doing this they wouldn't have gone over the top at the start of the attack as shown on tv. Also by this stage Chalk Pit Wood had been recaptured by the germans, so it doesnt tally with where Jack was last seen.

I was looking forward to the show as my grandfather was captured at Loos, probably on Hill 70 when the germans counter attacked, but felt the show was let down by inaccuracies.

You're right, I just checked on CWGC, they give Kiplings death as 27th Sep, which I read was a week after his birthday, they clearly siad he died a day after his birthday - I think they said 18 and 1 day

[Chief_Chum]

"Utterly appalling.

Do you know, when Jack looked through a crack in the trench wall they showed French and not German cruciform sections for the barbed wire.

Utterly disgraceful. What do they pay researchers for?

Bring back hanging, I say"

There were so many avoidable errors in the military scenes it would be difficult to know were to start. It's a great shame as it costs no more to do the job properly than it does to do it badly.

However, my favorite error has to be Rudyard Kipling visiting FM Earl Roberts after the Battle of Aubers Ridge in May, 1915 - six months after 'Bobs' had died of pneumonia visiting the Indian Corps in France. Kipling may have been well connected - but that would have been a truly impressive connection!

[John_Hartley]

Who is this Harry Potter everyone keeps mentioning?

[n cherry]

In reply to the very first question asked....I would agree that the trenches seemd a little bit well built for the 26th/27th September 1915......and from a purely anorak point of view the Guards Division was a little bit behind the 'front line' on the night of the 226th whereas the TV had them in hte front line.....still thisi s I suppsoe the prerogatvie of the film maker and it makes for a better story.....

Also was I right in thinking that Kipling was not wearing the IG star on his epaulette...just one pip as a SEcond Lieutenant?

[PBI]

I just hope that joe Public is unaware of these Glaring Errors.....????

[PBI]

On a general point, I`m always surprised to see nomansland shown as smothing like a hillocky scrapyard. They may be right, but I imagined there to be very little in nomansland once you`d cleared the wire. And flattish with shellholes.

[Kate Wills]

I just hope that joe Public is unaware of these Glaring Errors.....????

and this is the crux of the conflict between our desire for historical accuracy and the film-makers desire to please an audience.

Yes, this was an excellent drama, and David Haig (excellent casting) deserves an award for his portrayal of Rudyard Kipling. I was less impressed in the choice of his son, who looked as if he should have been in short trousers beside his dad. We know Rudyard pulled strings to get young John commissioned, but judging from this, the main mystery is how he lied about his height to join the Guards.

However, to get back to the main problem of trusting the scriptwriters with a historical event, Joe Public laps up what he sees as pure fact, and herein lies the danger. Real people, groups, and indeed whole nations have been blackened to satify the film-makers' art. Look at the amount of hatreds that have arisen from Hollywood blockbusters - you know the films I have in mind.

Doubtless, today, during many teabreaks across the nation, the Great War Generals will be taking more verbal flak, thanks to this Sunday night feature (and how nasty they were to order an attack the day after John's birthday).

[Shep]

I just hope that joe Public is unaware of these Glaring Errors.....????

I would have thought so. As Nick has already mentioned above, it's surely a good thing if it gets youngsters interested enough in the first place to start their own research.

I quite enjoyed it myself, but even I, who hasn't earned an anorak yet, noted some errors.

[enoch beard]

the great war generals deserve the flak!

didn't watch the prograame but watched ' what did you do in the great war daddy? on bbc4 which i enjoyed

[Neil Mackenzie]

Neil,

I won't answer your point as I don't feel the need to. However, if you are going to use a quote from me, then please use the whole sentence so that it is taken in context.

Thank you.

Aye

Tom McC

Yes sorry Tom I should have done - especially as I generally agreed with your point about the portrayal of the men.

Neil

[Kate Wills]

the great war generals deserve the flak!

Maybe they do - but not for inventions by contemporary film-makers.

[PhilB]

On a general point, I`m always surprised to see nomansland shown as smothing like a hillocky scrapyard. They may be right, but I imagined there to be very little in nomansland once you`d cleared the wire. And flattish with shellholes.

Is that the Loos battlefield? Not like the pieces I`ve walked across?

[rgalley]

"Utterly appalling.

Do you know, when Jack looked through a crack in the trench wall they showed French and not German cruciform sections for the barbed wire.

Utterly disgraceful. What do they pay researchers for?

Bring back hanging, I say"

There were so many avoidable errors in the military scenes it would be difficult to know were to start. It's a great shame as it costs no more to do the job properly than it does to do it badly.

However, my favorite error has to be Rudyard Kipling visiting FM Earl Roberts after the Battle of Aubers Ridge in May, 1915 - six months after 'Bobs' had died of pneumonia visiting the Indian Corps in France. Kipling may have been well connected - but that would have been a truly impressive connection!

Now, I have been known to shout at the telly when a well intentioned piece on military history is let down by poor / lazy / uninformed research. Not having seen last night's programme yet, I can't comment on the inaccuracies that are bound to have emerged and rankled with those members of the audience better informed about military details than the "average" viewer. I really do agree that it costs no more to do the job properly than it does to do it badly (someone must have been retained as military adviser on a production of such magnitude?)

However, something occurs to me ... whoever commissioned the programme is to be congratulated for doing so and having the bottle to make such a film at all for screening at peak time, on a Sunday night. Opinion is divided amongst Forum members which suggests that it must have had its merits, notwithstanding the errors of detail and chronology that appeared. In an earlier posting on this thread I commended the BBC's excellent and honest documentary on Wilfred Owen which also aired last night, but I'm sure even that programme offered several points that the purist could have taken issue with.

First thing this morning I was on a frosty platform waiting for my train to arrive to take me to work. I was standing next to a group of lads who are part of the "scenery" of my regular commute. Their usual range of conversation on a Monday morning is football (weekend gone), women, work and football (coming week). This morning 'My Boy Jack' made WW1 their main topic of conversation. Not because the trenches weren't quite the right depth, or profile, nor the uniforms quite the right shade of khaki, nor that timelines were a few days out. No, they talked about it because it had struck a chord, made them pause and think ... to count their blessings and to Remember. That can't be altogether bad can it?

[Kate Wills]

I think you reach a fair conclusion Piper, though I stiil maintan My Boy Jack would have lost nothing (and gained a great deal) as a drama had it remained true to historical fact.

[stevem49]

I thought it was an enjoyable piece of Great War Fiction and in that context quite watchable

stevem

[Neil Clark]

A thoroughly typical British Television drama putting over the pacifist's one sided agenda... It annoyed me to see a film like this about a very very wealthy family who advanced their own cause by careful and privilaged manipulation of the authorities. My thoughts are with less fortunate families - the vast majority...

[rgalley]

I think you reach a fair conclusion Piper, though I stiil maintan My Boy Jack would have lost nothing (and gained a great deal) as a drama had it remained true to historical fact.

Therein lies the rub ... there is history and there are facts, but there is no such thing as "historical fact".

I'm on your side, by the way!

[Pighills]

First thing this morning I ... That can't be altogether bad can it?

... and that, surely, must be the point of it all?

I thoroughly enjoyed it - not knowledgeable enough to comment on the accuracies or otherwise of this piece, but as a piece of drama it was damn fine and David Haig portrayed Rudyard Kipling excellently.

Interestingly it has been a hugely poplular topic of conversation on another forum (Family Tree Forum), along with others no doubt. so yes, it has got the public talking and that is always a plus point!!

[Diane Alden]

I really enjoyed it and I don't mind admitting that I shed a few tears. It obviously got me thinking about my own grandfather who died in September 1916 aged 24 and of how many peoples lives one man's ( or woman's) death made an impact on.

Obviously there is the immediate family and friends but to the little boy ( if this part was true) who was so proud to clean Jack's motor bike, to the telegram boys who knew they were delivering such terrible news possibly to parents/ relatives of men and boys that they knew. I don't know what average age these telegram boys would have been but imagine if say 12/13 years old to know that you are delivering such terrible news.

It must have been an overwhelming sadness that for me the actors portrayed extremely well that I felt some of the sadness and grief that my grandmother must have felt when she had news of my grandfather's death.

Diane

[Pighills]

Off topic I know, but has the quote button gone mad - it makes my response looks silly.

I quoted the whole of Piper's paragraph regarding the topic of conversation of the young lads at the railway station - just don't want people to think I've been my usual daft self!!

or am I missing something here?