90 Years of the RAF - BBC2

[lancs]

Missed it? Not yet.

[brakedwell]

Very disappointing with too much wasted time, which is typical of the BBC. Perhaps three half hour episodes covering different aspects of the RAF would have been better.

[Chris Griffin]

I Sky +'d the programme and courtesy of the fast forward button managed to watch it in 25 minutes. It was a weak production which seemed to have no real direction at all. It smacked of a half-ar*ed effort. What a missed opportunity.

Srennaps - contrary to your effort to stifle the debate, could I suggest that those of us critical of the programme do not have "chips" and are in no way disrespectful to fellow members past and present. The poor effort produced by the BBC hardly scratched the surface of our history; and it is that aspect which generates the criticism.

Doobs - agree that mention should have been made of all other serving personnel, however, a programme on the 90 years of the RAF without aircrew in it would be bizarre to Joe Public.

In summary: a very poor effort

[Irish Tempest]

2 images the RAF is trying to shed in the current recruiting environment:

1. It is a gentlemans club full of toffs and public schoolboys.
2. It consists solely of pilots.

IMHO the documentary failed to dispell both.

Whoever your rep is at DP(RAF) should take himself off and have a good chat with himself.

Oh and the line about 'creating traditons' made me chuckle...

IT

[neilf92]

SRENNAPS

"I really can’t believe some of the comments that I have read here tonight.

Some of you really are bitter and twisted people with a major chip on their shoulders.

I find some of your comments disgusting and unnecessary. Quite frankly they are insults to all that have died over the 90 years.

Shame on many of you.........you have hit a new low on PPRuNe with this thread. "

As someone who has admired , followed , portrayed and served in the Royal Air Force I take great exception to your remarks.
The greatest insult comes from the producers of this awful programme.
If you care to wake up - the comments come from those of us who care deeply about The Royal Air Force and do not need reminding of the many who have lost their lives in service - in war and peace.
I suggest you retract your unjustified comment.

[SRENNAPS]

I have read this thread many times now and I am sorry, but my comments stand. Maybe I am wrong and I apologise to anybody that has taken offence.

I do believe that whatever programme was made, it was always going to be highly criticised on this web site, only because it was made by the BBC.

If it’s worth anything, I have been to my local pub for lunch today where all the locals know that I served in the RAF for a long time. Those that saw the programme (and there were quite a few) enjoyed it both as informative and a tribute to the RAF. I am sure that if they read some of the posts on this forum they would be less impressed.

You seem to forget that the programme was aimed at people who have never served in the RAF. Ninety years of history is not easy to capture in ninety minutes. Rightly or wrongly the general public’s perception of the Royal Air Force remains to be “Fighter Pilots” and Lancaster Bombers in World War Two. They also remember very well the images of JP, but I’m afraid that’s about it.

When you read some of the posts in this thread and then compare them with many other threads on this website you notice a reoccurring theme; that is one of complaint and criticism of just about anything associated with the RAF. Sorry but it is my opinion that the majority of complaints, in sometimes quite a vulgar fashion, is just not called for.

[Crashed&Burned]

The RAF at 90....? Well, when you get to 90 you tend to lose your train of thought easily and that would sum up this programme. Fragmented, going off at tangents and without a consistent theme. Pity, an opportunity squandered.

C&B

[Wwyvern]

It was a very shallow programme.

[Tourist]

I am a little surprised that some on here find it unreasonable to for a programme about the history of the RAF to dwell mostly on WW2.
Banter aside, it was your finest hour and no disrespect to other campaigns but they really don't compare in sheer scale or importance in any way.

The RN has had a few good moments in history, (Taranto, St Nazier etc) but if they made a 90 minute programme about us I strongly suspect that the majority of it would dwell even further away in antiquity at Trafalgar. It does not mean nothing else has been worthy of note.

I also think that it is a bit silly to whinge about the aircrew getting all the attention. In all history there has never been a small child who, when asked what they want to be when they grow up, answered "mover" , "ATC" , "MT driver" etc. If you want a undeservedly glamourous image and tv adulation then become aircrew instead of complaining about lack of recognition in your role.

[NutLoose]

Anyone else find it somewhat ironic that in the opening scenes we heard an aircraft flying over and the school children all looked upwards....... what was it a Spitfire?, perhaps a Hurricane?...... Nope, a good old Cessna 152 hove into view... Perhaps they lost the plot from then on?

[Green Flash]

An aimless, rambling unconnected series of sounds and pictures. An example of how to take a good idea, a great set of resources and a potentially strong message and fcuk it up. But enough of DII(F).

I still havn't a clue what it was trying to say. The only emotion I felt was guilt - God Bless the Cloggies, at least they appreciate what was done to free them.

[30AB]

Tourist,
I think there may have been quite a few young chaps and chapesses whose ambition, was a career in military aviation maintenance and other worthy trades.

[LowNSlow]

Watched it with my Dad (ex-RAF 1939-1946, Halifaxes). Both of us were seriously underwhelmed. JP was good and I agree that he has no reason to feel that he didn't do his job.

With only 90 minutes to encapsulate 90 years of history why was so much time wasted on shots of people staring wisfully into the distance? The piece on Cranwell was good but the general lack of focus was appalling.

Glad they showed that the only memorial to Bomber Command is in Holland and the enthusiam of the Dutch in commemorating the scarifices made by the aircrew. As Dad pointed out, they were occupied and knew first hand what life was like under the Nazi regime and were prepared to suffer whatever it took to get the Germans out of Holland.

[AJatRED]

This programme gave the impression of a half-hearted attempt by media students at something beyond their capabilities or imagination. The result was a dismal effort, produced by amateurs with a camera technique best described as clueless; so many shots lacked context that they seemed divorced from the subject altogether. Quite what we were supposed to make of the time dedicated to viewing runway lights at dusk, or the dark profile of a man viewing said runway lights at dusk, is anyone’s guess. Nor was I much interested in watching Sleaford Tech apprentices marching on a piece of red carpet. As for the choice of background music – something less appropriate to accompany scenes of mass destruction than the Lark ascending would be almost impossible to find. The random insertions of the speaking clock were novel, though. Meaningless, but novel.

Then there was the storyline - hopelessly unbalanced and giving no indication of the breadth and scope of RAF operations and personnel, past or present. And while it probably seemed like a good idea at the time to use John Peters, his poor delivery detracted from the story. If someone doesn’t know what to say, or can’t express themselves properly, what's the point? There are plenty that can.

For a one and a half hour prime-time piece from the BBC, this programme lacked just about everything; direction, content, balance and perspective. It was a wasted opportunity that in the hands of a team with some nous and imagination, could have been full of interest and insight. Instead, we got a very dull presentation of only part of the story.

[Chugalug2]

AJatRED

Instead, we got a very dull presentation of only part of the story.

Agreed, but that part is the only part of the RAF's 90 years that interests the BBC. By comparing the gallant heroism of the Battle of Britain (and the modern counterparts at Coningsby) with the founding purpose of the RAF, Aerial Strategic Bombing, the "frightfulness" of the latter is supposedly exposed. That the incompetence of the production frustrated that exposure should not obscure the intent. Those who have served or are serving in the RAF in whatever role should be under no illusions. The British Broadcasting Corporation has a consistent policy of deploring the RAF Bombing Offensive of WW2. They may point out that no National Memorial to the 55,573 Aircrew of Bomber Command who died in the Bombing Campaign exists, but the implication of this and other coverage is that perhaps that is appropriate. I do not believe that is the attitude of the population as a whole. It is yet another example of how the British Broadcasting Corporation no longer reflects the attitude of the British.
Edited to add, Great first post, welcome to the Tower of Babel!

[North Front]

No Analysis

Disappointingly narrow coverage.... RAF at 90? What about current ops, hels, transport, UAVs... did we go into mothballs in 1945 until 1990 (apart from Grapple)? What about the Berlin Airlift? Malaya? Aden?

Very very poor... but to be expected from the current management

[airsound]

I’ve hesitated to dip my toe into this maelstrom, but I feel I have to. One of my problems has been that I have a foot in both camps - I was proud to be ‘in’ for 20 years, and I’m now a broadcaster, journo and commentator, specialising in aviation. I appear on the Beeb - and on anybody else’s screens and microphones who cares to pay - and that’s part of how I earn my living.

First of all, a matter of fact. Although the programme was on the Beeb, it was made by an independent production company called Prospect-UK. I understand that the RAF was happy for them to get the job because they could offer some of the same production people, including the Exec Producer, who made the acclaimed ‘Above Enemy Lines’.

I should also say that I was on the shortlist to be the narrator for ‘RAF at 90’. But, having not got the job, I approached the show fully prepared to dislike it. Childish, I know. My excuse is that I was deeply disappointed.

I have to say though, that, against my expectations, I thought it was rather good. As a 90-minute feature film (90 mins, 90 years, etc), it came over as clever, artistic and rather well-themed. I thought the several reprises of The Lark Ascending were lovely. Among other things, it also included some interesting research on the effects of second world war bombing that I certainly hadn’t heard before. And of course there was the lovely Geoffrey Wellum. One of the themes that I detected was a reflection of the love of all things to do with flying and aviation which, presumably, most Ppruners have. I guess you could argue that this was not the occasion to reflect that.

But, in fact, the programme seems to have gone down quite well amongst the wider BBC audience. As far as I can make out, the iPlayer version has stayed in the ‘most watched’ list for an unexpectedly long time for a BBC2 non-fiction 90-minuter.

However, I’m not disagreeing with all the knockers in the thread. First, the programme wasn’t a structured history of the RAF at 90, and, clearly, it missed out lots of important and significant stuff. (I speak as an ex-truckie) And obviously it wasn’t the programme the RAF thought it was going to get.

That said, I’m not sure that you could sell that ‘perfect’ RAF programme to any major broadcaster. Whether the broadcasters are right or wrong, I don’t think they would take 90 minutes of plain, vanilla history. Maybe the idea of a series of shorter programmes would work better. But I have to say that my experience of trying to interest broadcasters in the kind of material that I think most people on here want is pretty dismal - and I’ve been trying for quite a long time. Even people like the History Channel are notoriously hard to sell to.

So maybe we should be grateful for getting the coverage that we did get. It’s not perfect, but, in the old saw, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. And in this case, the publicity wasn’t even bad - just not as good as some of us might have hoped. Oh, and a disappointment for a major birthday.

airsound

[Chugalug2]

Thank you for your informative post, airsound, welcome as always. I intend to watch this prog yet again via BBCi, in the light of your comments. As regards the points you make, is it not likely that Prospect-UK made this programme to appeal to their idea of what the BBC wants? In the light of "Dresden", "Bomber Harris" and similar precedents it takes little thought to achieve such appeal. Is it not more likely that better balance might result from in house productions for no other reason than to at least attempt the notion of aiming for non-bias? When you say that:

it came over as clever, artistic and rather well-themed.

my impression was that it was too clever by half, but that is not important. As to artistic you are better qualified to make that judgement and I defer to your better understanding in these matters. The interesting comment is that it was well themed. I have already mentioned that I found dual contrasting themes, of light (Hendon, Battle of Britain, Typhoons at Coningsby, and the pilots of such from past and present). Intertwined were the forces of darkness (Hull, Trenchard and the raison d'etre of the RAF founding, bombing Kurdish villages, ominous lurking Zeppelin over the 1935 Cup Final, WW2 and the Bombing Offensive with striking colour footage and the ever belligerent and defiant voice of Harris both during and after the event, Grapple and the H bomb, our Cold War preparedness to use it as testified to by John Peters, with other "Bombers" from the past trying to explain their historic roles). Now that seems to me to be a very powerful and effective theme, heavily biaised against Strategic Bombing, the very reason of the RAF formation 90 years ago, or am I in error? You were honest enough to fess up to your own connection with the Beeb. My interest is with the provision of a National Memorial to Bomber Command's 55,573 Aircrew that died in WW2. I feel that it is a national disgrace that well over 60 years after the event, the survivors are still waiting for that. As a major opinion former over that period it seems to me to have consistently portrayed that campaign not as a vital ingredient of final victory, but as needless death and destruction as in this programme, or am I again in error? I know that this thread is concerned only with the programme, which will result in as many opinions as there are posts, but the elephant in the room is the BBC and the agenda it brings with it when portraying the RAF, particularly in WW2. Isn't it time we acknowledged the presence of this pachyderm?

[Phil_R]

There is an organisation in the UK which was created and granted crown support in the early part of the twentieth century, having been assembled from the assets of precursor organisations which did similar work. Since the early 90s, changes in the field in which it operates have caused it to undergo massive downsizing, to the dismay of many of its longest-serving and retired personnel. It is funded by direct taxation. It is one of very few UK organisations which regularly sends a very small proportion of its people in harm's way, most of whom do it because they have some sort of romantic feelings towards the job, but also because they feel like it's worth doing and needs to be done by somebody.

I'm talking about the BBC, of course (who did you think I was talking about?) and yes they do have some funny ideas about some things. A lot of it is due to their relative venerability, which has given them lots of strange, archaic beliefs and traditions, many of which make very little practical sense (yes, I'm still talking about the BBC), leading to some rather strange agendas at play.

Disclaimer: I hardly ever work for them, largely due to above.

[Chugalug2]

You capture the essence of the Beeb so well, PhilR, as only a professional can. So where is the justification, might I, ask of an organisation

funded by direct taxation

that has

archaic beliefs and traditions.....leading to some rather strange agendas at play

I have just watched the Sun Military Awards "Millies" on Sky. Channel 4 News is invariably the broadcaster leading with the airworthiness scandal and other military stories. The Beeb is no longer the sole Public Service broadcaster, yet it continues its privileged existence as though it is. Should it not sink or swim, as they must, and earn its own keep too in order to push out its agenda as instanced by the thread subject?(got that bit in as I sense Pop's finger edging even now towards the thread drift button!).