draws our attention to BBC accused of insulting war hero in The Times. The BBC’s own Radio Times has this to say:
It purports to be a serious look at British war films, yet only British Film Forever would come up with the following throwaway remark about Reach for the Sky, the biopic of legless Second World War hero Douglas Bader: “Viewers of this film might’ve thought they were having their legs pulled.” I wonder exactly who this witless commentary is aimed at? But as always with this series, best ignore such drivel…
We’ve been here twice already with this series (here and here) – didn’t anyone at the BBC read the tosh turned in by the writer (Matthew Sweet, apparently) before it was recorded and broadcast? Has the writer been reprimanded or spoken to? Or is the only lesson learnt, by the writer, that he can get paid handsomely by unwilling tellytaxpayers to stick in his own politicised sneers as much as he can get away with?
I wrote this in an earlier thread before this one was started..it is more appropriate here.
“The Beeb must have some sort of list of leftie right-on guests it calls on when in need of comments.
Take saturday night’s programme about British Films, on BBC2. Last night’s was about war films.
Apart from the sneery commentary, saying films like “Reach For The Skies” contained “unbelievable heroics….” (and I am sure the Beeb would say it was meant to be tongue in cheek..blah blah) there among the pundits commenting on said films was that well known expert film historian…. Billy Bragg!”
That’s because Bragg is a humourless bore who no doubt believes even ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarves’ is an analogy for the great anti-Thatcherite Class Struggle of the Downtrodden Workers (part MLXII).
There were so many PC idiocies in this programme that I lost count.
Among the pearls of wisdom – Zulu is basically an anti-war film.
United 93 was a superior war film becasue it did not arrive at any “judgements”.
The leftie posturing director Paul Greengrass was allowed to say that his film was more “true” despite the fact that what happend in the plane before it crashed is unknown
You only have to read about Bader’s life to realise that he was so different from the average BBC leftie he was virtually a different species.
The left loathes heroes, unless they are non-white or have butchered a few million in the name of socialism.
I’m not sure why Barry Wood is having a dig at Paul Greengrass, director of United 93. If I remember the film rightly, it showed the bravery and humanity of the innocent victims and the obscenity and horror of the islamic fascist’s actions “without judgement” precisely because no judgemental comments were needed, the facts were allowed to speak very eloquently for themselves.
Also notable in the film was the presence of a European passenger who tried to stop the other passengers taking action, whining that perhaps if the hijackers were given what they wanted maybe everything would be alright. His was presented as being clearly a hopelessly misguided and mistaken position. This hardly accords with the biases we might expect from a leftist film maker.
I know this comment has little to do with BBC Bias and I won’t cry if it’s deleted. I havne’t watched the series under discussion, and have no intention of doing so.
tree:
I saw United 97 several times and yes, it did skewer naive European lefties rather mercilessly. Not only did the European traveler (a German) behave like a coward in the film, he also snitched to the hijackers about the passengers’ plot to get into the cockpit and take control of the plane, thereby ruining the advantage of surprise. Anti-European Americans loved this scene, BTW.
One other point about this programme, and it is purely a stylistic one..it has that horrible slightly jocular but sneery type of narration which channel 4 used to use, more appropriately, on programmes like Eurotrash.
More than a decade on, and the BBC seems to be adopting a similar style.
Ever the trend setters…
Barry, the scenes depicted in Flight 93 were logically determined by flight recorders, phone calls, and by people who knew the passengers. The chaos in the flight cabin at the end, for instance, was virtually word-for-word from the flight recorder. What was happening was pretty obvious.
Mamapajamas:
Flight 93 the movie is just that a movie. The basic plot, that the passengers rose up, is there. The rest is there to fill in the space.
1120, Monday Morning, Ken Bruce and his travel muppette also have a dig at Douglas Bader: what have the Beeb got aaginst him at the moment?
Chuffer writes: “Ken Bruce and his travel muppette also have a dig at Douglas Bader: what have the Beeb got aaginst him at the moment?”
Bader represents everything the Beeboids despise. Courageous, patriotic, and of course white middle class. Oh and he was a real hero.
Yes he could also be cantankerous, yes he could be egotistical, and yes he might even have been guilty of recklessness sometimes.
But that’s often the kind of person needed when things get rough.
I am sure that should their country call on them, the Guardian reading, hand-ringing, sneering Beebaristas will be equally as ready to risk sacrificing their lives to maintain the freedom they now enjoy.
“Bader represents everything the Beeboids despise. Courageous, patriotic, and of course white middle class. Oh and he was a real hero.”
Alan, do you ever wonder whether your frothing, cartoonish characterisation of beeboids (or Guardianistas, or whatever the strawman du jour is for the much despised “left”) might owe more to your own inadequacies than theirs?
I mean seriously. It’s not just A-a-G, but the whole lot of the parrots of the sneering cabal of Guardianista lines. It’s as tedious as hearing spotty teenage rebels or hairy protestors decrying police as fascist pigs.
And more to the point, it devalues the blog’s comment section as just another ideological soapbox for the less hinged with little to add but tired old cariacatures, normally second hand from America.
Anon,
No one forces you to suffer our ill-informed, unhinged commentariat. I’m sure you will find the folks on Guardian Talk much more to your liking. Or possibly the BBC talkboards.
Anon writes…”do you ever wonder whether your frothing, cartoonish characterisation of beeboids…”
No, I never wonder. Because I know it’s true. But if you want to see real frothing, ranting idiological hatred, go take a look (as susan suggests) at Guardian Talk where the shouting down of anyone who remotely disagrees with them is often truly offensive.
But anon, I’m sure you know that already….
Anon,
Er, what century do you live in? If I read an article on the BBC website two minutes after it is posted, no matter where I am on the planet that cannot be considered “second hand”. If I watch the BBC World News or listen to a live broadcast on the World Service, or get live feeds from BBC News on my laptop, how is that second hand? Seriously, I could even be in the International Space Station or orbiting the earth in the space shuttle and still get reports from the BBC just as live as you.
Please explain why a comment from someone outside the UK, never mind a United Statesian, is automatically disqualified. And can you provide examples of comments from non-UK residents that can be considered “caricatures”?
Maybe you missed it, but David Gregory (BBC) recently opened up a similar can of worms, only to discover the reality that that most posts here are not in fact, as you say, “normally second hand from America”.
You sound like so many other leftoid fascists out there. Others here have already noted that and pointed you to friendlier pastures. In addition, your statement seems to imply that the BBC is merely a parochial broadcast organization. I doubt they would appreciate that.
What irritated me about this series was that every film in the 80’s was explained with reference to “Thatcher’s Britain”. Either it was a reflection of “Thatcher’s Britain” or an escape from “Thatcher’s
Britain”.
Illustrated of course by a voice over going on about the sinking of the Belgramo – where the screen showed the attack on the Galahad.
Films from the late 40’s were not flagged us as a reflection or escape from “Attlee’s austerity, rationed etc Britain..”
I’ve moderated the discussion about the discussion that Anon was pursuing with such pointless vigour. It wouldn’t be quite so tiresome if Anon at least had the manners and gumption to choose and use a name.
Sorry. I shouldn’t have been drawn.
The pub in Tangmere (near the airfield