projectmayhem | 04 Aug 2014 6:12 a.m. PST |
This Thursday see this 3 part drama being televised here in the UK. Appears to be 3 episodes dealing with Mons, the Somme and Amiens. I havent found any detailed information but google throws up some interesting images and brief write ups, but looking good. Anyone know any more? |
Mick in Switzerland | 04 Aug 2014 6:36 a.m. PST |
I found this Thursday 21.00 BST link "Our World War – The First Day Episode 1 of 3 Duration: 1 hour Inspired by the BAFTA-winning series Our War, which tracked the first-hand experiences of British troops on the front line in Afghanistan, this series immerses viewers in the real stories of British troops serving on the front line during World War One. August 1914, two weeks after the First World War was declared. 80,000 British troops have arrived in southern Belgium, but they have yet to engage the enemy. Amongst these professional soldiers are the 4th Battalion, The Royal Fusiliers, some of the best trained gunners in the British Army. Lieutenant Maurice Dease and his friend, Australian Lieutenant Fred Steele, command two companies of riflemen and machine gunners who find themselves camping overnight at Nimy Bridge, the northernmost point of the Mons-Conde canal. The canal, surrounding the town of Mons, supports 18 bridges stretched along 20 miles of water – but everyone, including Private Sid Godley and his mate Private William Holbrook expects to be crossing those bridges in the morning. Overnight, however, intelligence reports the Germans may be closer than the British think, and the Royal Engineers, including Lance Corporal Charles Jarvis and his sapper, Private Neary are ordered to start preparing the bridges for demolition. What happens next, on Sunday 23rd August, tests the soldiers' skill, courage and ingenuity to the absolute limit, leading to the first Victoria Crosses of the First World War. Not everyone will make it through the First Day." Episode 2 will be called Pals. |
Mick in Switzerland | 07 Aug 2014 11:05 p.m. PST |
I watched the first episode last night. I thought it was excellent. |
Suetonius Paullinus | 08 Aug 2014 12:50 p.m. PST |
I second that Mick! Inspired me to start a mini Mons project in 15mm. Peter Pig EW figures. I need -definitely- more Huns ;-) Looking very much forward to seeing the next instalment! Cheers SP |
alan L | 08 Aug 2014 2:07 p.m. PST |
Powerful drama and truly exhausting to watch. Excellent camera work. |
MarkCorbett | 08 Aug 2014 3:58 p.m. PST |
Reviews have been quite mixed in the papers but I thought it was superb. I loved the combination of maps / graphics that really helped with the context. |
Knight of St John | 09 Aug 2014 2:50 a.m. PST |
Just watched it on I player and enjoyed. Does anyone know when part two is on ? |
Mick in Switzerland | 09 Aug 2014 2:52 a.m. PST |
Thursday 21.00 BST every week – there are three episodes. It is also repeated overnight. |
Knight of St John | 09 Aug 2014 3:50 a.m. PST |
|
Mick in Switzerland | 10 Aug 2014 8:05 a.m. PST |
I just saw that it is also repeated on Sunday night at 9.00pm. |
Dropship Horizon | 10 Aug 2014 1:45 p.m. PST |
Watching first episode just now ….about Mons, concentrating on Nimy and Jemappes……cracking stuff! Really brings to life everything Ive ever read about the battle. Inspiring yet poignant. A definite must see! Cheers Mark
|
monk2002uk | 11 Aug 2014 5:09 a.m. PST |
The first episode provides a very good representation of what it was like for the defenders of Nimy when under fire. Alas the presentation of the German forces is far from accurate. True to the description of the programme, the events were based on recollections of survivors of the Royal Fusiliers Regiment. The memories of how the Germans reacted were not, however, consistent with how the attack began or evolved. There is the suggestion that the Germans were untrained conscripts who learned quickly. This was far from the case. Enjoy the programme if you get a chance to see it but be aware of the bias. This is not a criticism, just a reminder of what you get inside the tin. There is a suggestion that II Corps HQ gave the order to retire at 2 pm and then bugged out. This was not the case. In fact much of the representation of the higher level command and control is not accurate. The 4/Royal Fusiliers represented a boundary line between two brigades. The 4/Middlesex were defending Obourg to the east. They got left hanging when 4/RF pulled back and 4/Middlesex were not told. II Corps continued to manage the battle, containing the German break-in to Mons as well as the German advance across the canal at Jemappes. Robert |
Chouan | 13 Aug 2014 7:32 a.m. PST |
I watched it this avo and quite enjoyed it. Apart from the obvious simplifications of the story, which were understandable, there were only a few things that grated. Which were: 1) Lt.Steele was Australian. Yes. But he was a Lieutenant in the Royal Fusiliers, so he would have been wearing Royal Fusiliers uniform, not some kind of Oz pastiche of a uniform. He probably wouldn't have sounded particularly Australian either; middle class Australians didn't start sounding like Australians until the 30's. 2) A corporal of Royal Engineers is not called "sir" by a private of Royal Engineers. He is called corporal, or, possibly, corp. 3) A corporal of Royal Engineers would never have spoken to a commissioned officer, no matter which rank or unit, the way this one did. Not without expecting to be on a charge anyway! In any case, thanks for highlighting it. |
Dropship Horizon | 13 Aug 2014 11:12 p.m. PST |
Challenge of Battle: the Real Story of the British Army in 1914 by Adrian Gilbert and Trial by Fire: Command and the British Expeditionary Force in 1914 Nikolas Gardner revise the older British boys own mythology about the BEF's battles. Must say though, I've done the purely historical stuff and quite happy in this instance to stick to what I grew up with (First Seven Divsions by Lord Ernest Hamilton, Mons, Retreat to Victory by John Terraine and latterly The Mons Star by David Ascoli). Cheers Mark |
monk2002uk | 14 Aug 2014 2:40 a.m. PST |
Mark, there is still a middle ground to be found I'm afraid. 'Challenge of Battle' has been too heavily influenced by Martin Samuels' work with respect to the command and control issues. In other respects it is a very good overview of the British involvement in the first months of the war. 'Trial by Fire' is a better analysis of command and control. Neither Gilbert nor Gardner have fully analysed what went on further down the command chain though. Gilbert has used the usual quotes around the difficulties but he did not present a balanced view based on a wider perspective and range of references. Robert |
Supercilius Maximus | 15 Aug 2014 6:19 a.m. PST |
1) Lt.Steele was Australian. Yes. But he was a Lieutenant in the Royal Fusiliers, so he would have been wearing Royal Fusiliers uniform, not some kind of Oz pastiche of a uniform. He probably wouldn't have sounded particularly Australian either; middle class Australians didn't start sounding like Australians until the 30's. Speaking of accents, Dease was an Irishman from Co. West Meath. Whilst he may have had a more anglicised accent of the type common to the eastern side of Ireland, attending Stonyhurst School and Wimbledon College Army Class, he would have found plenty of other Irish accents and so would have been unlikely to have lost his. On a more general note, does anyone else find the dialogue too 21st Century? In the Pals episode, an officer looks at the man whose letters were used to inspire the episode and says, "You look like !" I doubt that was a much-used (if at all) expression among early 20thC British soldiers, and I find it unlikely that an officer of that period would have used it. Or am I wrong? |
Chouan | 15 Aug 2014 7:32 a.m. PST |
Again, in his time and from his class, he would have been as completely RP as any other officer, as would his class mates at school. Watch any film from the 1930's; the accents of the middle classes were RP, wherever they were from. I sailed with several Irish officers in my time at sea; very few sounded Irish. Your second point is spot on though. |
Mick in Switzerland | 15 Aug 2014 7:50 a.m. PST |
I have enjoyed both episodes. I think that the 21st century dialogue helps to bring it alive. On the other hand, the silly mohican camo thing on one Manchester soldier's helmet may serve to identify the character but certainly does not match my picture of WW1. |
Supercilius Maximus | 15 Aug 2014 10:42 a.m. PST |
Another thing I noticed – and I appreciate that this is a very nit-picking point in the great scheme of things – is the way that the British soldiers carry their rifles when advancing. I would have thought that when moving forward, the normal position would be (high) porte, from which you can come easily to either the "present" or "on guard". However, the troops – and I've noticed this before on recently-made historical programmes – all hold the SME with the barrel pointing down, which requires effort (rather than gravity) to bring the weapon up for use. Is this a legacy of modern generations being brought up on TV footage of British soliders in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq, or Afghanistan where they are holding weapons with the barrel pointing down? Now this was, in NI at least, a deliberate pose to look less threatening, but of course both the SLR and SA80 have a pistol grip which makes this a more natural position anyway. I also noticed that the Victrix 28mm plastic British Napoleonic infantry had several figures in this kind of downward pointing pose rather than the drill-book "recover" position (which, with a nearly six foot long musket/attached bayonet, would have led to a lot of involuntary pole-vaulting when moving forward at any speed). |
Johny Boy | 15 Aug 2014 2:10 p.m. PST |
Personally, I felt the fisrt episode overall was excelllent, the whole "Kasabian does WW1" soundtrack was scaled back after the opening few minutes and the rest of the music, whilst modern, set the scene well. Script is too modern and the language is contempory not period, which can really hamper the flow as with the second episode, where I feklt you were clearly watching modern actors talking ans emoting as 21st century individuals,not characters from 1914.Overall though, bar the Mohichan helmet addition, costumes, camerawork and graphic interpretation have been spot on. WQell done to the BBC for putting this on. For it's target audience i would imagine it's been succesful in opening up the events of the Great War. |
Lion in the Stars | 15 Aug 2014 2:25 p.m. PST |
Any plans afoot to show this in the US on BBC America? |
Trajanus | 17 Aug 2014 9:39 a.m. PST |
Just watched the second episode and found it excellent like the first, with the added amusement of seeing some of the action being shot on location while walking the dog! I think the pace and feel to both episodes has been very engaging and in line with the original Afghanistan documentary format. An important point to bring relevance of warfare in times past to modern viewers. I would add that while I don't doubt any of the historical detail points raised are true, with the possible exception of the Royal Engineers Corporal unquestionably being "On a Charge", none grated on me. Although I have to say even I found the "Mohichan helmet" a bit odd, not to mention unnecessary. The row between the Officer and the Corporal was obviously a plot device to show the disordered supply state but the helmet, who knows? I also think its excellent that the producers have attempted to capture the open nature of the early war, the slog and trenches of the mid period and the breakthrough of mechanised warfare (Ameins and a Tank Crew is the final episode) in just three programs. Irony for me is that I couldn't watch the series that inspired the approach as most of it was shot by soldiers in action with hand held video, or most importantly (for me) head cams. I suffer from terrible motion sickness (when I'm stationary and the subject is moving) so the jerky footage totally prevented me from seeing the programs! |
Chouan | 18 Aug 2014 3:46 a.m. PST |
"Another thing I noticed – and I appreciate that this is a very nit-picking point in the great scheme of things – is the way that the British soldiers carry their rifles when advancing. I would have thought that when moving forward, the normal position would be (high) porte, from which you can come easily to either the "present" or "on guard". However, the troops – and I've noticed this before on recently-made historical programmes – all hold the SME with the barrel pointing down, which requires effort (rather than gravity) to bring the weapon up for use. Is this a legacy of modern generations being brought up on TV footage of British soliders in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq, or Afghanistan where they are holding weapons with the barrel pointing down? Now this was, in NI at least, a deliberate pose to look less threatening, but of course both the SLR and SA80 have a pistol grip which makes this a more natural position anyway. I also noticed that the Victrix 28mm plastic British Napoleonic infantry had several figures in this kind of downward pointing pose rather than the drill-book "recover" position (which, with a nearly six foot long musket/attached bayonet, would have led to a lot of involuntary pole-vaulting when moving forward at any speed)." Very good points. In virtually all photos that I've seen, as well as contemporary film, rifles are always held at the high port, especially if bayonets are fixed. Occasionally at the trail, but only without bayonets. |