I found the nurse unable to wash a male body to be very hard to believe but did a bit of research myself and found it was actually true. Upper and middle class women with no idea in some cases even how to look after themselves, volunteered as VAD's having never seen a naked male body.
I'd say it was absolutely spot on. Most young ladies of that social class in that era would definitely not have seen a naked man's body before. Many would not even have been alone in the company of any man other than family (even when fully dressed) , as confirmed by this source
When war came, the Red Cross and Auxiliary hospitals sprung up rapidly in church halls, public buildings and private houses, accommodating anything from ten patients to more than a hundred. The proportion of trained nurses in the units was small, and much of the basic work was the responsibility of the VADs – they cleaned, scrubbed and dusted, set trays, cooked breakfasts; they lit fires and boiled up coppers full of washing. They also helped to dress, undress and wash the men – which was of course a big step for young women who may never have been alone and unchaperoned with a member of the opposite sex before, other than their brothers.
Why would it or could it be touted as "the new 'Call The Midwife'"? It's completely dissimilar.
I've been watching, and then reading this thread, so (at the risk of needing a tin hat) here are my thoughts so far.
Firstly, I'm really enjoying it. It's perfect Sunday night viewing. That's not to say I'm heaping it in with 'Call the Midwife', because I'm not. I watch CTM, and it's nothing like that, other than being nursing/medical work depicted in an earlier era of history. If anything, The Crimson Fields is a WW1 'version' of M*A*S*H* - which, for the record, looked even 'cleaner' in terms of blood and general dirt! In fact, in the very first episode of the TV version of M*A*S*H* no blood at all was allowed on screen, leading to the rather contradictory sight of two surgeons wearing pristine surgical 'whites', but the script having them saying they'd just come out of '12 hours of meatball surgery'! Even when this was challenged by the actors and writers the show still looked far too clean and tidy to be anywhere near realistic in look, although it was certainly more real in terms of events depicted. And yet, M*A*S*H* is held in the highest esteem as almost the definitive all-round respectful depiction of the hard work, mixed with black humour, of life of a medical field hospital in the Korean War, and the visual 'cleanliness' is rarely mentioned or considered important next to the story being told. And yet, now, The Crimson Field is - apparently, according to some (perhaps they didn't watch M*A*S*H*?) far too 'unrealistic' and 'clean' and that's something that is seen as a irredeemable sin leading to 'can't watch this' and 'don't like it' comments!
Secondly, no nit-picking here when it comes to requiring near perfection on screen. No programme will ever get it completely right (no matter what the 'armchair experts' think the programme-makers should be capable of considering in terms of this that and the other, research, set design and the like). Anyway, whatever the varying opinions, because TCF so clearly tying in with the whole 100 year remembrance, I'm sure that much hard work that went into researching, and then depicting (as well as they could within the varying constraints of making shows like this today) the events of a field hospital in the relatively early days of WW1. Regardless of what people's own 'opinions' are on what 'should' be historically correct, having read bits and pieces over the years, memoirs of nurses and volunteer nurses who were there in hospitals such as this etc, there's little that is totally unrealistic.
Thirdly, whilst perhaps some things have been sanistised for the modern viewer - black soldiers weren't always welcomed with so little prejudice as depicted on screen, for example, although, perhaps surprisingly, they seem to have been more respected in WW1 than in the apparently more 'modern' times of WW2 (and thereafter, 50s and 60s with the influx of immigrants from the West Indies). Perhaps the benefit of 'empire' being more important, open and respected in the early years of the 20th century, this filtered through more than we expect to the battlefields of WW1. Equally, nurses were expected to look clean, tidy and presentable in full uniform, correctly worn, at all times, no matter what. Anyone who's watched Casualty 1909 will know exactly how no quarter was given to nursing staff, and the military nursing of only 5 years after would have been modelled on those standards in the WW1 field hospitals.
Finally, whilst of course there have to be 'characters' (good and bad) in which we can invest, or whom we can 'love to hate' in order to make any kind of TV drama, it's not unrealistically done in TCF. So far, everyone seems to be potentially 'real', or as 'real' as it can be whilst fitting into the constraints of making a TV drama in the 21st century: the naive, posh young 'gel' who's never seen a naked man (totally realistic - wedding nights were often horrific affairs for girls of that class and upbringing!); the tension between the 'real' nurses, used to their discipline and routine, such as Sr Quayle, and the volunteers (again, going back to the point about civilian nursing in hospitals such as The London in Casualty 1909, where nurses were forbidden to marry if they wanted to stay in nursing, just as military nurses in WW1 were); the sense of making order out of chaos in the seemingly impossible-to-fathom balancing act of order and routine with the chaos of casualties and assessing who, of the living, could/should return to the front line; the wooden 'pavement's built to keep them above the mud that would inevitably come with any rain that fell... the list goes on.
Someone criticised the depiction of the nurse 'praying' over the toes she'd just thrown into the furnace, but 'nice' girls like her would have been brought up to respect their families and God in equal measure, and attending church/Sunday school and saying their prayers for any and all reason would have been a huge part of the life of any well-brought up young adult of the era. To suddenly have the cosy routine presented as 'nonsense' or a 'waste of time' would have been anathema to girls such as that, at least at the start. Of course, like everyone else involved in the sharp end of war, they would have quickly realised that there was no time for things like that, or a realisation that it didn't matter as much as they'd been led to believe, but on Day One? I didn't see anything unrealistic all in that.
Whether, or not, families were 'invited' to field hospitals is something I haven't been able to verify - that is, possibly, the only huge departure from reality. But, in terms of the bigger picture, I think they're telling a story in a realistic way, presenting the ebbs and flows of a life that was manic one minute and relatively 'boring' the next, and all-too real for too many, in a way that makes it work. It's got my own children, who were already interested in history, interested in finding out more about this aspect of WW1.
With no one left now who remembers it first-hand, it's important that any way of commemorating and respecting the events of WW1 is used to maintain awareness, and I think that's more important than worrying about nit-picking and complaining about 'what they got wrong' (or, in some cases, what people think they got wrong, but amazingly - perhaps - didn't; it's just that it's too unbelievable to think that it might actually be almost right!)
Of course, I know many opinions on here vary with mine - and that's ok, we can't all like everything that's presented as 'entertainment' on TV - but taken as a whole, and with two great-grandfathers who fought in WW1, it's got more right than wrong.
Why would it or could it be touted as "the new 'Call The Midwife'"? It's completely dissimilar.
I agree. They couldn't be less alike. But the TV columns were selling it as something to fill the gap for all those missing CTM, or CTM moved to a WW1 scenario. That is what I meant in my post. It meant viewers had built up a certain expectation, quality wise as well as storyline wise, and it just isn't of the same quality as CTM so is suffering in comparison.
I've been watching, and then reading this thread, so (at the risk of needing a tin hat) here are my thoughts so far.
Firstly, I'm really enjoying it. It's perfect Sunday night viewing. That's not to say I'm heaping it in with 'Call the Midwife', because I'm not. I watch CTM, and it's nothing like that, other than being nursing/medical work depicted in an earlier era of history. If anything, The Crimson Fields is a WW1 'version' of M*A*S*H* - which, for the record, looked even 'cleaner' in terms of blood and general dirt! In fact, in the very first episode of the TV version of M*A*S*H* no blood at all was allowed on screen, leading to the rather contradictory sight of two surgeons wearing pristine surgical 'whites', but the script having them saying they'd just come out of '12 hours of meatball surgery'! Even when this was challenged by the actors and writers the show still looked far too clean and tidy to be anywhere near realistic in look, although it was certainly more real in terms of events depicted. And yet, M*A*S*H* is held in the highest esteem as almost the definitive all-round respectful depiction of the hard work, mixed with black humour, of life of a medical field hospital in the Korean War, and the visual 'cleanliness' is rarely mentioned or considered important next to the story being told. And yet, now, The Crimson Field is - apparently, according to some (perhaps they didn't watch M*A*S*H*?) far too 'unrealistic' and 'clean' and that's something that is seen as a irredeemable sin leading to 'can't watch this' and 'don't like it' comments!
Secondly, no nit-picking here when it comes to requiring near perfection on screen. No programme will ever get it completely right (no matter what the 'armchair experts' think the programme-makers should be capable of considering in terms of this that and the other, research, set design and the like). Anyway, whatever the varying opinions, because TCF so clearly tying in with the whole 100 year remembrance, I'm sure that much hard work that went into researching, and then depicting (as well as they could within the varying constraints of making shows like this today) the events of a field hospital in the relatively early days of WW1. Regardless of what people's own 'opinions' are on what 'should' be historically correct, having read bits and pieces over the years, memoirs of nurses and volunteer nurses who were there in hospitals such as this etc, there's little that is totally unrealistic.
Thirdly, whilst perhaps some things have been sanistised for the modern viewer - black soldiers weren't always welcomed with so little prejudice as depicted on screen, for example, although, perhaps surprisingly, they seem to have been more respected in WW1 than in the apparently more 'modern' times of WW2 (and thereafter, 50s and 60s with the influx of immigrants from the West Indies). Perhaps the benefit of 'empire' being more important, open and respected in the early years of the 20th century, this filtered through more than we expect to the battlefields of WW1. Equally, nurses were expected to look clean, tidy and presentable in full uniform, correctly worn, at all times, no matter what. Anyone who's watched Casualty 1909 will know exactly how no quarter was given to nursing staff, and the military nursing of only 5 years after would have been modelled on those standards in the WW1 field hospitals.
Finally, whilst of course there have to be 'characters' (good and bad) in which we can invest, or whom we can 'love to hate' in order to make any kind of TV drama, it's not unrealistically done in TCF. So far, everyone seems to be potentially 'real', or as 'real' as it can be whilst fitting into the constraints of making a TV drama in the 21st century: the naive, posh young 'gel' who's never seen a naked man (totally realistic - wedding nights were often horrific affairs for girls of that class and upbringing!); the tension between the 'real' nurses, used to their discipline and routine, such as Sr Quayle, and the volunteers (again, going back to the point about civilian nursing in hospitals such as The London in Casualty 1909, where nurses were forbidden to marry if they wanted to stay in nursing, just as military nurses in WW1 were); the sense of making order out of chaos in the seemingly impossible-to-fathom balancing act of order and routine with the chaos of casualties and assessing who, of the living, could/should return to the front line; the wooden 'pavement's built to keep them above the mud that would inevitably come with any rain that fell... the list goes on.
Someone criticised the depiction of the nurse 'praying' over the toes she'd just thrown into the furnace, but 'nice' girls like her would have been brought up to respect their families and God in equal measure, and attending church/Sunday school and saying their prayers for any and all reason would have been a huge part of the life of any well-brought up young adult of the era. To suddenly have the cosy routine presented as 'nonsense' or a 'waste of time' would have been anathema to girls such as that, at least at the start. Of course, like everyone else involved in the sharp end of war, they would have quickly realised that there was no time for things like that, or a realisation that it didn't matter as much as they'd been led to believe, but on Day One? I didn't see anything unrealistic all in that.
Whether, or not, families were 'invited' to field hospitals is something I haven't been able to verify - that is, possibly, the only huge departure from reality. But, in terms of the bigger picture, I think they're telling a story in a realistic way, presenting the ebbs and flows of a life that was manic one minute and relatively 'boring' the next, and all-too real for too many, in a way that makes it work. It's got my own children, who were already interested in history, interested in finding out more about this aspect of WW1.
With no one left now who remembers it first-hand, it's important that any way of commemorating and respecting the events of WW1 is used to maintain awareness, and I think that's more important than worrying about nit-picking and complaining about 'what they got wrong' (or, in some cases, what people think they got wrong, but amazingly - perhaps - didn't; it's just that it's too unbelievable to think that it might actually be almost right!)
Of course, I know many opinions on here vary with mine - and that's ok, we can't all like everything that's presented as 'entertainment' on TV - but taken as a whole, and with two great-grandfathers who fought in WW1, it's got more right than wrong.
That is one of the very best posts I have seen on this forum. An excellent analysis - and thank you!
I agree. They couldn't be less alike. But the TV columns were selling it as something to fill the gap for all those missing CTM, or CTM moved to a WW1 scenario. That is what I meant in my post. It meant viewers had built up a certain expectation, quality wise as well as storyline wise, and it just isn't of the same quality as CTM so is suffering in comparison.
I would hope that the viewing public are not quite so insipid and shallow that they would expect a depiction of a WW1 Field Hospital to be comparable to a cosy depiction of the work of community midwives of the 1950s in East London.
That's not in anyway intended to diminish the genuine hardships and raw emotions which are portrayed in Call the Midwife but there are no real parallels. Childbirth, in reality, is a normal part of life - although it can and often does not go according to plan and sadly trauma and death were too frequently the outcomes for working class mothers and babies, living in less than ideal conditions. Most of the work of midwives however, tends to be positive and life-affirming.
World War 1 was a unique world event resulting in horror which had never been imagined, far less experienced before and the scale and extent of deaths, injuries and horrific mutilations were beyond the imagination of most people. Working in the conditions of a Casualty Clearing Station or Field Hospital must have been akin to stepping into hell itself and one only needs to read the memoirs of WW1 nurses and soldiers to realise that.
To compare one with the other is madness and as I think I said before, apart from the aprons there's not a lot which unites the two.
I (again, going back to the point about civilian nursing in hospitals such as The London in Casualty 1909, where nurses were forbidden to marry if they wanted to stay in nursing, just as military nurses in WW1 were); the sense of making order out of chaos in the seemingly out more about this aspect of WW1.
My mother was a nurse in London just before WW2, when she married she had to give up nursing as married women weren't allowed. However when the war started she was contacted by the matron who asked her to return, which she did. Certain classes of civilians are entitled to the Defence medal, including nurses, so I applied for it on behalf of my mother and she was awarded it.
I (again, going back to the point about civilian nursing in hospitals such as The London in Casualty 1909, where nurses were forbidden to marry if they wanted to stay in nursing, just as military nurses in WW1 were); the sense of making order out of chaos in the seemingly out more about this aspect of WW1.
My mother was a nurse in London just before WW2, when she married she had to give up nursing as married women weren't allowed. However when the war started she was contacted by the matron who asked her to return, which she did. Certain classes of civilians are entitled to the Defence medal, including nurses, so I applied for it on behalf of my mother and she was awarded it.
Thanks for sharing as this is a lovely reason to be proud of your Mum.
I've been watching, and then reading this thread, so (at the risk of needing a tin hat) here are my thoughts so far.........
........Of course, I know many opinions on here vary with mine - and that's ok, we can't all like everything that's presented as 'entertainment' on TV - but taken as a whole, and with two great-grandfathers who fought in WW1, it's got more right than wrong.
(Edited)
Thanks for such a thoughtful, well-written post jp - a pleasure to read
I would hope that the viewing public are not quite so insipid and shallow that they would expect a depiction of a WW1 Field Hospital to be comparable to a cosy depiction of the work of community midwives of the 1950s in East London.
That's not in anyway intended to diminish the genuine hardships and raw emotions which are portrayed in Call the Midwife but there are no real parallels. Childbirth, in reality, is a normal part of life - although it can and often does not go according to plan and sadly trauma and death were too frequently the outcomes for working class mothers and babies, living in less than ideal conditions. Most of the work of midwives however, tends to be positive and life-affirming.
World War 1 was a unique world event resulting in horror which had never been imagined, far less experienced before and the scale and extent of deaths, injuries and horrific mutilations were beyond the imagination of most people. Working in the conditions of a Casualty Clearing Station or Field Hospital must have been akin to stepping into hell itself and one only needs to read the memoirs of WW1 nurses and soldiers to realise that.
To compare one with the other is madness and as I think I said before, apart from the aprons there's not a lot which unites the two.
I doubt very much they are. But I think tone wise and quality wise a lot of people were expecting something similar and, as a result, The Crimson Fields is (perhaps unfairly) being judged against a superior series. The characters in CTM are better drawn and seemed to engage and pull in the viewers more.
Also, I think everyone realises that WW1 was a unique event However, it doesn't mean that any drama aspiring to portray aspects of that event are beyond reproach.
I doubt very much they are. But I think tone wise and quality wise a lot of people were expecting something similar and, as a result, The Crimson Fields is (perhaps unfairly) being judged against a superior series. The characters in CTM are better drawn and seemed to engage and pull in the viewers more.
Also, I think everyone realises that WW1 was a unique event However, it doesn't mean that any drama aspiring to portray aspects of that event are beyond reproach.
My reference to WW1 being unique was merely to emphasise that its horrific events and the lasting impact were - and remain - unparalleled. Obviously there are 4 episodes still to be aired and it may be that the series will depict further events more graphically than the first 2 episodes have done.
On the other hand, they may be focusing more on the individual stories of the characters using the Field Hospital and events of the war as the context rather than using the war itself as the premise, although the manner of timing it for the centenary of the beginning of WW1 suggest otherwise.
If anything, I think they could do more to examine and explore the roles and lifestyles of women of this era than they have done so far but it is good to see a drama where the strongest characters are women.
The Suranne Jones character is starting to irritate me.
Is she poorly or something ??
In Corrie she was a looker with a fab body , then in That cop series she'd lost a lot of weight and looked much older and haggard but now she looks dangerously underweight.
In Corrie she was a looker with a fab body , then in That cop series she'd lost a lot of weight and looked much older and haggard but now she looks dangerously underweight.
It took off tonight and some interesting stories are beginning to emerge. It's taken a couple of episodes but there's now some real flesh being added to the bones. The Suranne Jones character's involvement with 'the Belgian' family wasn't the only good story line tonight and that one looks set to get even better.
I’m really not interested in the right props being used (only read this page), the point about Call The Midwife is surely that we’re following the story arcs of a group of women as their backgrounds are slowly revealed and new events shape them and their relationships in the group. It’s going to emotional.
And I’ve never ever seen CTW. It’s just Sunday night stuff on BBC1.
There must be something wrong with me because I didn't enjoy last night's episode as much as the first two.
When the Suranne Jones character first appeared, she was like a breath of fresh air. Very jaunty and full of life. Now we have the usual 'Suranne Jones' method acting which involves a lot of staring into space with open mouth.
I didn't like the Irish story much and how many times have we had the snotty upper class officer having a go at the hero in the lower ranks.
I just felt it slipped into a 'deja vu' scenario for me last night.
I will stick with it though, maybe I was having an off night
When the Suranne Jones character first appeared, she was like a breath of fresh air. Very jaunty and full of life. Now we have the usual 'Suranne Jones' method acting which involves a lot of staring into space with open mouth.
I would have liked to hear more on how that sergeant knew that sister so well, it would have been a welcomed hint into her background, although there was that comment about protegees... I didn't fully understand why he was crying when he hauled that naked lance corporal away, was that his passion for the King, disappointment in the LC (especially as he saw him as 'his son'), or realisation that he himself acted wrong in regards to the LC's request to see his family?
Does anyone know anymore about the contraption used on the injured soldier's leg? I thought it was called 'the carol deacon' but I must have seriously misheard as all I've found on Google is stuff about cakes!
It picked up a little last night, although I do agree with this comment:
I would have liked to hear more on how that sergeant knew that sister so well, it would have been a welcomed hint into her background, although there was that comment about protegees... I didn't fully understand why he was crying when he hauled that naked lance corporal away, was that his passion for the King, disappointment in the LC (especially as he saw him as 'his son'), or realisation that he himself acted wrong in regards to the LC's request to see his family?
Does anyone know anymore about the contraption used on the injured soldier's leg? I thought it was called 'the carol deacon' but I must have seriously misheard as all I've found on Google is stuff about cakes!
Comments
I'd say it was absolutely spot on. Most young ladies of that social class in that era would definitely not have seen a naked man's body before. Many would not even have been alone in the company of any man other than family (even when fully dressed) , as confirmed by this source
http://www.scarletfinders.co.uk/181.html
I've been watching, and then reading this thread, so (at the risk of needing a tin hat) here are my thoughts so far.
Firstly, I'm really enjoying it. It's perfect Sunday night viewing. That's not to say I'm heaping it in with 'Call the Midwife', because I'm not. I watch CTM, and it's nothing like that, other than being nursing/medical work depicted in an earlier era of history. If anything, The Crimson Fields is a WW1 'version' of M*A*S*H* - which, for the record, looked even 'cleaner' in terms of blood and general dirt! In fact, in the very first episode of the TV version of M*A*S*H* no blood at all was allowed on screen, leading to the rather contradictory sight of two surgeons wearing pristine surgical 'whites', but the script having them saying they'd just come out of '12 hours of meatball surgery'! Even when this was challenged by the actors and writers the show still looked far too clean and tidy to be anywhere near realistic in look, although it was certainly more real in terms of events depicted. And yet, M*A*S*H* is held in the highest esteem as almost the definitive all-round respectful depiction of the hard work, mixed with black humour, of life of a medical field hospital in the Korean War, and the visual 'cleanliness' is rarely mentioned or considered important next to the story being told. And yet, now, The Crimson Field is - apparently, according to some (perhaps they didn't watch M*A*S*H*?) far too 'unrealistic' and 'clean' and that's something that is seen as a irredeemable sin leading to 'can't watch this' and 'don't like it' comments!
Secondly, no nit-picking here when it comes to requiring near perfection on screen. No programme will ever get it completely right (no matter what the 'armchair experts' think the programme-makers should be capable of considering in terms of this that and the other, research, set design and the like). Anyway, whatever the varying opinions, because TCF so clearly tying in with the whole 100 year remembrance, I'm sure that much hard work that went into researching, and then depicting (as well as they could within the varying constraints of making shows like this today) the events of a field hospital in the relatively early days of WW1. Regardless of what people's own 'opinions' are on what 'should' be historically correct, having read bits and pieces over the years, memoirs of nurses and volunteer nurses who were there in hospitals such as this etc, there's little that is totally unrealistic.
Thirdly, whilst perhaps some things have been sanistised for the modern viewer - black soldiers weren't always welcomed with so little prejudice as depicted on screen, for example, although, perhaps surprisingly, they seem to have been more respected in WW1 than in the apparently more 'modern' times of WW2 (and thereafter, 50s and 60s with the influx of immigrants from the West Indies). Perhaps the benefit of 'empire' being more important, open and respected in the early years of the 20th century, this filtered through more than we expect to the battlefields of WW1. Equally, nurses were expected to look clean, tidy and presentable in full uniform, correctly worn, at all times, no matter what. Anyone who's watched Casualty 1909 will know exactly how no quarter was given to nursing staff, and the military nursing of only 5 years after would have been modelled on those standards in the WW1 field hospitals.
Finally, whilst of course there have to be 'characters' (good and bad) in which we can invest, or whom we can 'love to hate' in order to make any kind of TV drama, it's not unrealistically done in TCF. So far, everyone seems to be potentially 'real', or as 'real' as it can be whilst fitting into the constraints of making a TV drama in the 21st century: the naive, posh young 'gel' who's never seen a naked man (totally realistic - wedding nights were often horrific affairs for girls of that class and upbringing!); the tension between the 'real' nurses, used to their discipline and routine, such as Sr Quayle, and the volunteers (again, going back to the point about civilian nursing in hospitals such as The London in Casualty 1909, where nurses were forbidden to marry if they wanted to stay in nursing, just as military nurses in WW1 were); the sense of making order out of chaos in the seemingly impossible-to-fathom balancing act of order and routine with the chaos of casualties and assessing who, of the living, could/should return to the front line; the wooden 'pavement's built to keep them above the mud that would inevitably come with any rain that fell... the list goes on.
Someone criticised the depiction of the nurse 'praying' over the toes she'd just thrown into the furnace, but 'nice' girls like her would have been brought up to respect their families and God in equal measure, and attending church/Sunday school and saying their prayers for any and all reason would have been a huge part of the life of any well-brought up young adult of the era. To suddenly have the cosy routine presented as 'nonsense' or a 'waste of time' would have been anathema to girls such as that, at least at the start. Of course, like everyone else involved in the sharp end of war, they would have quickly realised that there was no time for things like that, or a realisation that it didn't matter as much as they'd been led to believe, but on Day One? I didn't see anything unrealistic all in that.
Whether, or not, families were 'invited' to field hospitals is something I haven't been able to verify - that is, possibly, the only huge departure from reality. But, in terms of the bigger picture, I think they're telling a story in a realistic way, presenting the ebbs and flows of a life that was manic one minute and relatively 'boring' the next, and all-too real for too many, in a way that makes it work. It's got my own children, who were already interested in history, interested in finding out more about this aspect of WW1.
With no one left now who remembers it first-hand, it's important that any way of commemorating and respecting the events of WW1 is used to maintain awareness, and I think that's more important than worrying about nit-picking and complaining about 'what they got wrong' (or, in some cases, what people think they got wrong, but amazingly - perhaps - didn't; it's just that it's too unbelievable to think that it might actually be almost right!)
Of course, I know many opinions on here vary with mine - and that's ok, we can't all like everything that's presented as 'entertainment' on TV - but taken as a whole, and with two great-grandfathers who fought in WW1, it's got more right than wrong.
I agree. They couldn't be less alike. But the TV columns were selling it as something to fill the gap for all those missing CTM, or CTM moved to a WW1 scenario. That is what I meant in my post. It meant viewers had built up a certain expectation, quality wise as well as storyline wise, and it just isn't of the same quality as CTM so is suffering in comparison.
That is one of the very best posts I have seen on this forum. An excellent analysis - and thank you!
I would hope that the viewing public are not quite so insipid and shallow that they would expect a depiction of a WW1 Field Hospital to be comparable to a cosy depiction of the work of community midwives of the 1950s in East London.
That's not in anyway intended to diminish the genuine hardships and raw emotions which are portrayed in Call the Midwife but there are no real parallels. Childbirth, in reality, is a normal part of life - although it can and often does not go according to plan and sadly trauma and death were too frequently the outcomes for working class mothers and babies, living in less than ideal conditions. Most of the work of midwives however, tends to be positive and life-affirming.
World War 1 was a unique world event resulting in horror which had never been imagined, far less experienced before and the scale and extent of deaths, injuries and horrific mutilations were beyond the imagination of most people. Working in the conditions of a Casualty Clearing Station or Field Hospital must have been akin to stepping into hell itself and one only needs to read the memoirs of WW1 nurses and soldiers to realise that.
To compare one with the other is madness and as I think I said before, apart from the aprons there's not a lot which unites the two.
(Edited)
Thanks for such a thoughtful, well-written post jp - a pleasure to read
I doubt very much they are. But I think tone wise and quality wise a lot of people were expecting something similar and, as a result, The Crimson Fields is (perhaps unfairly) being judged against a superior series. The characters in CTM are better drawn and seemed to engage and pull in the viewers more.
Also, I think everyone realises that WW1 was a unique event
My reference to WW1 being unique was merely to emphasise that its horrific events and the lasting impact were - and remain - unparalleled. Obviously there are 4 episodes still to be aired and it may be that the series will depict further events more graphically than the first 2 episodes have done.
On the other hand, they may be focusing more on the individual stories of the characters using the Field Hospital and events of the war as the context rather than using the war itself as the premise, although the manner of timing it for the centenary of the beginning of WW1 suggest otherwise.
If anything, I think they could do more to examine and explore the roles and lifestyles of women of this era than they have done so far but it is good to see a drama where the strongest characters are women.
Acting is very good
Is she poorly or something ??
In Corrie she was a looker with a fab body , then in That cop series she'd lost a lot of weight and looked much older and haggard but now she looks dangerously underweight.
http://www.listal.com/viewimage/2608506
That was a good episode.
This episode was really good. No happy endings. Really sad in places.
She's just had the temerity to get a decade older.
How dare she
I agree with other posters that this was a good episode and far less soapy than I thought it was going to be.
And I’ve never ever seen CTW. It’s just Sunday night stuff on BBC1.
When the Suranne Jones character first appeared, she was like a breath of fresh air. Very jaunty and full of life. Now we have the usual 'Suranne Jones' method acting which involves a lot of staring into space with open mouth.
I didn't like the Irish story much and how many times have we had the snotty upper class officer having a go at the hero in the lower ranks.
I just felt it slipped into a 'deja vu' scenario for me last night.
I will stick with it though, maybe I was having an off night
Yes, I'm sure you're right. As I said, I didn't particularly enjoy it.
Does anyone know anymore about the contraption used on the injured soldier's leg? I thought it was called 'the carol deacon' but I must have seriously misheard as all I've found on Google is stuff about cakes!
I heard it as 'Daykin'. Could be wrong tho'