354 replies to this topic

[Beau Geste]

I should have  stayed up longer ! Anyway, I'll respond to as many as I can here.

#273 Thanks Gwyn. I really didn't mean to pry. I just thought that maybe it had had something to do with the sort of pressures I'm referring to here.


#274 Wonderful!  I'm always been an admirer of people who devote themselves to teaching kids (and adults) with special needs.


#280 Good for you Truth (and no I'm not patronising you) I agree that a person can't spend as long as you have done as a student without being able to recognise a bad teacher. My only criticism of what you say is your reference to teachers who "have given up on their students" as if that's what I'm referring to on this thread. On the contrary, my intention was to highlight those teachers who because of the teaching/learning situation they find themselves in, work really hard to teach something worthwhile. A number of times on this thread members have suggested that despite the errors in the film it is still a positive xperience in the sense that it could well generate in the minds of people who view it, an interest in The Great War that might not otherwise have manifested itself. I'm suggesting that in teaching situations where teachers are not constrained by fixed curricula etc the same argument exists. For the life of me, I don't see the difference. It really is, sometimes, a case of interest the audience or they'll "take your pants down" (metaphorically speaking of course).

#283 Well, I really have tried Ian. I think one of the reasons why you and I differ is that we really are talking about different things. The highlight of my teaching career was as an officers' tutor in The Army. The officers were all graduates or graduate equivalent. They were highly motivated because they had to earn a staff college place if they were to ever command their regiment and  I was teaching  subjects I loved: international politics and strategic theory. There was never a question of adopting measures that were designed to interest them simply because a failure to do that would mean they'd switch off. On the contrary it was a teaching paradise. Of course, one thought long and hard about how to present the material to them in as interesting and as motivating a way as possible. However, the contrast between that situation and the one I found myself in several times before and after that : when I was doing my teacher training  in Birmingham; when I taught Liberal Studies to day release students in the north west, and   later as a teacher trainer when I was visiting  my students on placement. couldn't possibly have been greater.

You have taught for 38 years and I respect you for that. I did teacher training in 1968/69 and was in teaching, in one form or another until I retired when I was 72 in 2009. That makes it what....over 40 years on   the "chalk face".

#284 You're quite right. I was an education officer in the RAEC (see #283 above) I resigned my commission in 1979 and took up a job in a College of Further and Higher Education in the north west of England. I was naive, the post that was was advertised was for someone to "develop the teaching of political subjects throughout the college" It sounded just what I w\as looking for !!! Unfortunately, too late I realised it was a post for a liberal studies teacher working on the day release programme where the apprentices were required to do an hour each visit on a subject (I listed a number of them on an earlier posting) that were designed to widen their experience of life. I believe this is no longer a requirement of colleges. Anyway after about a year and a few months  I went from the college on a year's  academic exchange to the USA and, on my return, moved sideways into teacher training.  I took early retirement  in about  1990 and set myself up as a training consultant until I finally retired in 2009.

In other words, Siege, I've had a varied career and because of that I believe that my views are worth considering and not just rejected and ridiculed.

Harry

[Dragon]

squirrel, on 31 January 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

However, were not forums such as this, the LLT and organisations such as the WFA formed to promote awareness of what actually happened?

Yes... but ... I became interested in the English Civil War because of the film 'Cromwell' which completely captivated me. I hadn't even started 'O' level History at the time, but I decided that if 'A' Level History had the Stuarts in it I was going to take it, and it did, and I did. Now I know there are lots of faults in the film, and doubtless had there been online forums in the 1970s people would have been apoplectic at some of the details, but behind my PC at this very moment is a shelf half-full of academically-oriented books abut the Civil War period and I still walk the battlefields when I can. I developed a grown-up interest.

Doesn't it give you pleasure when someone says to you, "Did you see 'Downton Abbey'? It really got me thinking." Or 'War Horse' or 'Birdsong' or...?   Paul Reed's Great War Photos blog has had huge numbers of hits this week, traffic to the Tunnellers' Memorial website and laboisselleproject.com has shot up. Surely that means that people's interest has been fired. (Even our Drill Hall site traffic spiked after 'Birdsong' and unique visitors in Jan 2012 are exactly 50% more than in Jan 2011.) The evidence is that for some people, interest has been generated where it was at best latent before.

What I'm trying to say is that while accuracy matters and enthusiasts are always going to grumble to like-minded people, most punters don't care too much about finer details on film, but they will go away with changed thinking to seek out places where they can read around or see pictures or whatever has been sparked in their imagination. Isn't that good enough?

Gwyn

[steve morse]

Wot still no Mod intervention on this teacher thread.  What has it to do with WW1 - Skindles it forthwith (or sooner)

[Beau Geste]

steve morse, on 31 January 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Wot still no Mod intervention on this teacher thread.  What has it to do with WW1 - Skindles it forthwith (or sooner)

Steve,

I couldn't agree more.

It has ceased to be dialogue from which people can extend their knowledge of The Great War into something that people are using to lubricate their own egos.

It wouldn't be so bad but a prime mover in what is now a bit of a witch-hunt has nothing to say that's worth listening to.

Harry

[George Armstrong Custer]

[quote name='Beau Geste' timestamp='1328028250' post='1704115']
It has ceased to be dialogue from which people can extend their knowledge of The Great War into something that people are using to lubricate their own egos.
[/quote]

[quote name='Beau Geste' timestamp='1327944972' post='1703426']
You  contribute to this thread as if you  really are aN experienced teacher.  Ridiculing  the comments I make despite the fact that my CV really does  qualify me to make these points.


[quote name='Beau Geste' timestamp='1327857447' post='1702760']
I  was  going  to say  b------s but what the hell. If that's all you  can  contribute  Siege (and I remember you pulling me up a long time ago  for  "seige") I  wouldn't bother.




George

[Dragon]

steve morse, on 31 January 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

.  What has it to do with WW1 - Skindles it forthwith (or sooner)

My second paragraph in the post above yours deals entirely with WW1 and the influence of film on public perception of the War.

[alex falbo]

Dragon, on 31 January 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

Yes... but ... I became interested in the English Civil War because of the film 'Cromwell' which completely captivated me. I hadn't even started 'O' level History at the time, but I decided that if 'A' Level History had the Stuarts in it I was going to take it, and it did, and I did. Now I know there are lots of faults in the film, and doubtless had there been online forums in the 1970s people would have been apoplectic at some of the details, but behind my PC at this very moment is a shelf half-full of academically-oriented books abut the Civil War period and I still walk the battlefields when I can. I developed a grown-up interest.

Doesn't it give you pleasure when someone says to you, "Did you see 'Downton Abbey'? It really got me thinking." Or 'War Horse' or 'Birdsong' or...?   Paul Reed's Great War Photos blog has had huge numbers of hits this week, traffic to the Tunnellers' Memorial website and laboisselleproject.com has shot up. Surely that means that people's interest has been fired. (Even our Drill Hall site traffic spiked after 'Birdsong' and unique visitors in Jan 2012 are exactly 50% more than in Jan 2011.) The evidence is that for some people, interest has been generated where it was at best latent before.

What I'm trying to say is that while accuracy matters and enthusiasts are always going to grumble to like-minded people, most punters don't care too much about finer details on film, but they will go away with changed thinking to seek out places where they can read around or see pictures or whatever has been sparked in their imagination. Isn't that good enough?

Gwyn

This is indeed most excellent to hear. The film has benefited living historians as well. I would imagine anyone publishing a book now or in the next seven years shall also see some better results. Not doubt in addition to the centennial too.

[hesmond]

Dragon you are spot on how many people of a certin age became intrested in the Napoleonic Wars due to Rod Steiger ect in Waterloo ? but a film with dare i say a few inaccurices ,and the film Zulu ! you could write a hefty book on all the wrongs ! but how many collectors ,historians got into the subject due to that movie ,loved Cromwell with Richard Harris ,that movie got more than a few in to the Sealed Knot and the study of the war .

[Tom Kilkenny]

Michael,

Pleased to hear you enjoyed the film!

Tom

[MichaelBully]

Thanks Tom ! I have been talking to colleagues about it at the office today. Explaining that in my humble opinion view the movie as a story with World War 1 setting, not a documentary, and be prepared for some sentimental scenes. In its own genre, it works well.
One pal of mine at work made stated that she couldn't go to see 'War Horse' as she wouldn't be able to watch scenes where an animal gets hurt. I asked "What about the hundred thousands of men getting killed and maimed'. Her retort was ' Oh I 'm not worried about them.' This comment  interested me as this view was parodied  in the 'Private Eye' magazine spoof 'Bore Horse' .
Michael Bully

Tom Kilkenny, on 31 January 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Michael,

Pleased to hear you enjoyed the film!

Tom

[Marshal Ney]

As a boy I read a book called The Talisman briefly about Richard Coeur De Lion and Saladin. It was all about honour not the real killing fields as it was. But it got me reading history about the Crusaders. ( Come to that Ivanhoe included)

As a boy, again having interest in the Crusaders led me to watching the Shakespeare's plays in the BBC production of The Age of Kings, this got me interested in the 100 Years War and War of the Roses.

About sometime in the Early 90's I switched the TV on to see the opening Gambit of Waterloo with the Marshals walking down the corridor to ask Napoleon to abdicate, at first I thought, no, I don't want to watch this, but I got absorbed into it and ever since became interested in the Napoleonic Wars.

So like it has already been said on some posts about War Horse, whether accurate or not, it can lead to Youngster or Adults into further interest.

Regards MN

[Dragon]

Jeremy Banning @jbanningww1 has tweeted this evening that there's massive interest in the 2014-2018 period. Isn't that what Great War enthusiasts want?

[squirrel]

Dragon, on 31 January 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

What I'm trying to say is that while accuracy matters and enthusiasts are always going to grumble to like-minded people, most punters don't care too much about finer details on film, but they will go away with changed thinking to seek out places where they can read around or see pictures or whatever has been sparked in their imagination. Isn't that good enough?

Gwyn

And that is where the GWF, LLT and WFA come in is it not?

[Dragon]

I didn't say they didn't. I'm sure Spielberg and his team avidly perused this forum, the WFA forum and Uncle Tom Cobbley's forum before committing images to camera. How could they not. But ultimately the aim of the film has to be about being shown, and getting people to pay to go in the cinema, and giving them a good time when they're in, and inevitably that will involve compromises. Those compromises don't bother most of the audience unless they're absolutely glaring mistakes which almost everyone in the cinema will know is a mistake. (I referred recently to a piece in a national newspaper which, seriously, reported that the Wehrmacht landed on a beach in Woking in 1940-something. That sort of mistake.)

In my opinion, what comes afterwards is vital. Then, if engaged by a film,  the audience will turn to websites, books, blogs, museums, forums, with a picture in their minds and curiosity to find out more. Hence the increase of traffic to websites over the past six weeks or so.

Even our grandparents didn't tell us the truth when we were young and asking what it was like in the olden days, in the First World War, in the Second. But I bet from those misty half-stories which left out the gore and the pain and the terror, many people on this forum are now avidly reading up about exactly what their relatives went through.

Gwyn

[keithfazzani]

What seems to have been missed, or perhaps not as I haven't read every line of the thread, is that the original book upon which the play was based and subsequently the film was a children's novel.

[Willie]

Dragon, on 31 January 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

Jeremy Banning @jbanningww1 has tweeted this evening that there's massive interest in the 2014-2018 period. Isn't that what Great War enthusiasts want?

They'd probably prefer an interest in the 1914-1918 period.....
I'm afraid accommodation in Ypres and Albert may be more difficult to access for the next few years.

[Auditman]

Given the interest shown on the subject of Warhorse it will be interesting to anticipate another of Michael Morpurgo's books that is being released as a film this year. It is call Private Peaceful.

It involves brothers, WW1 and Court Martials with Haig et al. From what I can see the Director's last work was a film about the 2006 World Cup.

Can't wait to see the pre-release reviews here and then those after.

Jim

[Pighills]

keithfazzani, on 01 February 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

What seems to have been missed, or perhaps not as I haven't read every line of the thread, is that the original book upon which the play was based and subsequently the film was a children's novel.

Keith, it has been mentioned.  I mention it specifically in post #154 (page 7) and it is referred to again by Anneca later on.  It may also have been mentioned by others.

Auditman, I await Private Peaceful with bated breath.  I enjoyed War Horse for what it was:  a bit of entertainment that we (mostly) enjoyed, which was a film about a horse in WWI.  I don't expect much more from Private Peaceful, but if it turns out better, well then great!

[blackmaria]

The early part of the Great war on the western front has always fascinated me and i cannot recall any modern film that has shown that period of open warfare before.The cavalry charge against the wood will stay in my memory for a long time.I know it may not have reflected a true action of that period of the war but it gave one a flavour of what it must have been like to take part in a cavalry charge in 1914.

[Pighills]

As it so happens, I have just received some literature which tells me Private Peaceful is being produced at the South Bank Centre on 14th and 15th February as part of the Imagine festival for children - so anyone wanting to see it ....................

[Marshal Ney]

keithfazzani, on 01 February 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

What seems to have been missed, or perhaps not as I haven't read every line of the thread, is that the original book upon which the play was based and subsequently the film was a children's novel.

Hi Keithfazzani
This is true as some posts have stated a Childrens novel. But many with this knowledge(Adults), have gone and seen the film, not all with their youngsters.
So yes, there you have it. I can live with that,I enjoyed the film.The great thing is how trench scenes and shell bursts etc seem to be getting better through technology.The only person to know how true are those now passed on from that era, but brought to life on The GWF.
So apart from TV dramas I cant think of many recent films taking time out to express WW1 in the trenches.
Come to think of it, the same goes for THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY, but there is a great Victorian replica of that in the Reading Musuem.

Regards MN
.

[Anthony Pigott]

I know this is off-topic (!) but people are starting to talk about Private Peaceful.

Every tired cliché in the book - not just about the Great War but about social attitudes too. Can I just ask anyone who thinks they like it to read this: http://greatwarficti...ivate-peaceful/ , which is much better than I can put it. I know all the arguments about how anything about the Great War is better than nothing, gets people interested, etc. I have to say Private P pushes that argument to the limit.

I did see Warhorse - not a bad film if you see it as a soppy horse story, but Mr M obviously knows as much about horses as he does about the Great War.

Regards

Anthony

[seaJane]

When I read Private Peaceful it irritated me profoundly because of the narrative trick the author plays on the reader, regardless of anything about the Great War - my thoughts were only confirmed when I found, not long after, the same link that Anthony cites.

[Siege Gunner]

If I'm not mistaken, our ever-dependable Pal, Taff Gillingham, posted recently that he was involved in the production of 'Private Peaceful'.

[Steven Broomfield]

Well, I've seen it. I forwent The Archers omnibus and forked out £30 at the local multiplex to go with Mrs B and the elder daughter.

Firstly, it wasn't the worst film I've ever seen (it didn't have Adam Sandler or Celia Imrie in it, for a start), but I was amazed at how utterly soulless it was. A series of set-pieces strung together, really.  Good actors wasted: Eddie Marsan about the only one who comes over at all well), but people like David Thewlis, Benedict Cumberbatch and Niels Arestrup (odious as the gangster, Luciani, in Un Prophet) performing caricatures rather than charcters.

Oddly I ened up being less worried about the historical bits (strangely, even the OTT bits such as the cavalry charge were OK to set the scene), but I was amazed at the amount of time and money spent making a film purely, so it seems, to show how clever the director is.

On the bright side, apart from the lack of Sandler and Imrie, the cinematography was spectacular, and B Cumberbatch looks dashingly good with a 'tache (like most men), and it was only 2 and a half hours, so it could have been worse.

I pointed out to Mrs B that I found the foreigners speaking with foreign accents rather than sub-titling it while they spoke their own languages was annoyinh. She pointed out it was a kids' movie. I suppose that's a fair reason: presumably we can't trust kids these days to read.

It could have been worse, but in the hands of a sympathetic director it could have been so much better.

And an aside, back to the discussion on equine deaths at Monchy: I see Anglesey estimates deaths in the 10th Hussars and Essex yeomanry as possibly as high as 900. However, a note I found in the 10H archive yesterday puts their horse deaths at 250.  You pays your money ...