Historically Accurate???? - Bodyline (1984) Discussion

[–] CROWJANE29 19 years ago

As a completely objective viewer (as far as the cricket rivalry is concerned; I'm American) I am aware of a certain bias in the way the story is told. I'm not an expert as to the history of the events portrayed (though I did look up historical accounts after watching the series) but you don't have to be to see the series "takes liberties". It's still magnificently acted and thoroughly involving, but the air of nationalism is a bit overplayed.

reply

[–] badtemplar 19 years ago

I think Don Bradman summed it up when he said that the TV series was 'good entertainment'. It's exactly that.

Gary Sweet's portrayal as the lovable, cheeky and popular Don Bradman had little to do with the real person who was shy, intense and was resented by the players of the 1920s and 30s.

There is a lot of melodrama in the series...especially when the English start bowling bouncers and the Australian batsmen (like Bill Woodfull) completely lose their batting technique.

Also...there was no such person as 'Edith' she's merely a character through which we observe the life of Jardine.

TV and films are the last places we should be getting our history from...they should spark an interest which leads us into further investigation of the events.

reply

[–] sdavmor 19 years ago

Concur on all points. The problem with using Edith (an acceptable device) is that they then lost the opportunity to put in a scene (between the 3rd and 4th tests) to show Jardine getting dumped by his fiancee long-distance via telegram. I think the best thing about the "Bodyline" mini-series is that it should encourage cricket fans to go and read books on this vital piece of cricket history. My choice for the best bet on that front is the 2002 "Bodyline Autopsy" by David Frith.

reply

[–] MrPrudence04 16 years ago

Gary Sweet's portrayal as the lovable, cheeky and popular Don Bradman had little to do with the real person who was shy, intense and was resented by the players of the 1920s and 30s.

I agree to an extent, although I don't think they were as far off the mark as you imply. There were moments where you saw that shyness and intensity beam through, like in the locker room when Don is sitting quietly with his head down listening to the conversation surrounding whether they should play on in the series. Then the room goes quiet and they turn toward him, waiting for his input.

I think his potrayal was a little bit on the cheeky side, but I'm sure there were aspects of his persona which he saved for closed doors. I don't think it was a bad portrayal. I think if anything there wasn't enough arrogance, which Bradman had in spades.

"Your death therapy cured me, you genius.."

reply

[–] sdavmor 19 years ago

My cousin ordered this from Oz, and we've just got done watching it. The acting's great -- up to BBC mini-series standards. The cricket playing is solid, even if one has to suspend belief at it being "test cricket". At least all the principal actors can obviously play the game, and have decent form with bat and ball, so there's nothing cringe-worthy about the on-field action. What it does make me wish for though is to see some of the real footage. Reading comments by people in the know (like Fingleton) really makes me want to see Larwood in action. From all accounts I'm sure that he must have been a breathtaking sight to behold.

As for accuracy and historical license, I can live with the things done for dramatic effect, except for the depiction of the 3rd test incidents with Larwood and the balls that struck Woodfull and Oldfield. I think the greatest disservice the mini-series does is to not show clearly that these two infamous balls -- the one that lifted to hit Woodfull above the heart, and the one the smashed Oldfield in the forehead -- were not short-pitched leg-theory at all, but simply fractionally short of a length balls (the kind that normally elicit a firm backwards defensive shot) that sat up and spat venom. In Woodfull's case his dreadfully slow footwork (the opinion of Archie Jackson and others) made him a sitting duck for anybody with genuine pace, while Oldfield unfortunately simply lost sight of the ball, changed his mind about his stroke, went for a pull and top-edged the ball into his face. History would have been served better had the scriptwriters played that straight.

It would have been nice in the closing segments on the players (Was that shortened? It seemed like there should have been more in there about more of them...) if they'd mentioned that Larwood and Oldfield became close friends after Larwood's immigration to Australia, and that Larwood was one of the pallbearers when they laid Oldfield to rest.

reply

[–] jodie_anne76 19 years ago

hi can i get a copy off you please cant wait to watch it

reply

[–] michael.bailey 19 years ago

There are a number of statistical indiscrepancies - e.g. Bradman got 974 instead of 975 in the 1930 series. However, the wickets do fall in the correct order in the 3rd test - having checked from a scorecard. However none of this detracts. This is a classic!

reply

[–] sdavmor 19 years ago

Any fan of cricket should have this IMO. Thoroughly enjoyable from start to finish.

reply

[–] ambarishr 18 years ago

Well if we're being snippy about the cricket, :)

Harold Larwood's action isn't very accurate. I've read a few times though, that Waqar Younis's action was very similar to the way Larwood used to charge in.

Gubby Allan's action (as potrtayed in the series) is almost exactly like the way he really bowled. (compared it to many pictures)

reply

[–] badtemplar 18 years ago

Yes John Doyle (aka Roy Slaven) did his homework on Gubby Allen's action.

Ray Lindwall also had a strikingly similar action to Harold Larwood.

reply

[–] ambarishr 17 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a_F9atHcqo

Larwood in action

It's interesting that while Larwood was the most successful bowler no doubt for England, the 2nd by far was Gubby Allan. Who refused to bowl to the leg theory field. And with 21 wickets, played a huge part in the series.

In fact, Voce (15 wickets), Larwood (33 wickets) and Bowes (1) , who all used Bodyline, combined for 49 wickets. The bowlers who didn't, Allan (21), Verity (15), Hammond (9), Mitchell (3) combined for 44 wickets. So it was 53% to 47% in terms of bodyline bowlers getting the wickets.

Combine that with the monster series Suttcliffe and Hammond had with the bat. In fact England, just scored more runs. Did the Aussie board make a huge judgement error in selecting so many spinners for the series? O'Reilly / Ironmonger / Grimmett, Bromley, when it was clear that the English batsmen had their measure? (although their averages weren't that bad)

The only pacer the Aussies had was Tim Wall, who led the team in bowling averages.

You could make the argument that even without the Bodyline theory, England would have been in the driving seat.

Here are the averages for the tour:

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1930S/1932-33/ENG_IN_AUS/ENG_IN_AUS_1932-3_TEST_AVS.html

However, Larwood did have Bradman's number in the series. Bradman's dismissals:

2nd test - Bradman, 1st innings, bowled Bowes, 2nd innings not out.
3rd test - Bradman, 1st innings, c Allen, bowled Larwood, 2nd innings, c&b Verity.
4th test - Bradman, 1st innings, bowled Larwood, 2nd: ct. Mitchell, bowled Larwood.
5th test - Bradamn, 1st innings, bowled Larwood, 2nd innings, bowled Verity.

Dismissals by bowler:

Larwood (4)
Verity (2)
Bowes (1)

I believe when he was out to Bowes, from what I've read, it wasn't in the bodyline field. So approximately 50% of the time, he was out, to non bodyline fields.

Bodyline was probably great in terms of putting the fear and "getting into the head" of the Aussies, but in terms of affecting the series, I think the tv series and even the media since then, have overplayed it's significance somewhat.

reply

[–] jim holt 17 years ago

Thanks so much for your compliment. I'm living in London at the moment and writing a piece about Harold Larwood. It's about my experience of playing him, and meeting his daughters after Harold's memorial service when they invited me back to his home. Personally, it was a very moving experience and one that I cherish because I felt I had portrayed 'Larwood' the man rather than just the Sportsman. I was welcomed by them as a part of the family and was one of two guests that they invited back - I felt extremely privileged. One of his daughters presented me with a signed copy of his book 'The Larwood Story' and needless to say it's one of my most prized possessions.
Thanks again for the compliment in your post. It's still one of my favourite roles even after so many years.
Regards,
Jim Holt

reply

[–] purcto 17 years ago

The character of Ernie Jones (the larrikin heckling fan/ex-Test fast bowler) seems to be based a lot more on the famous Stephen "Yabba" Gascoigne. He even spouts some of Yabba's famous lines, such as telling Jardine to "leave our flies alone". Yabba was so famous to the crowds of the SCG - and the Australian sporting public in general - that the "hill" (an unseated grass slope) at the ground was later named after him. I'm not sure why, then, he morphed into the Jones character for the Bodyline series.

reply

[–] jono82 16 years ago

Has anyone else notice how all the grounds in the series bear a striking resemblance to the SCG? ;)

reply

[–] mdliske 15 years ago

Don Bradman was probably the greatest athlete in sporting history and many of his team mates were (understandably) jealous of him.

I corresponded with Sir Donald before he died and Jessie was also related to a work colleague. Sir Donald was a very humble man - not at all arrogant as an earlier poster indicated. He was well aware of his talent (how could he not be?) but genuinely believed he had seen others who batted as well as he did. Bradman was far from arrogant - rather he was confident and believed in his abilities. All sportsmen should be this way.

Jesse (his wife) was horrified at being shown dancing with Jardine in "Bodyline". She said she never would have done that and had never even met Jardine. Also, ladies were not allowed to sit in the Member's Stand in the 1930's.

It was a well made series about a very significant moment in sporting history.

reply

[–] Prismark10 13 years ago

As always with these types of series liberties are always taken.

When this was shown in the UK, it was discussed extensively by the BBC test match commentators and a few of them had known the English players and were certain that they were not like the people as portrayed in the series. it was still a good series though.

Its that man again!!

reply

[–] tgrrrsss 13 years ago

By all accounts Bradman was an intense and private man, who could be difficult, personally speaking I happen to be related to Clarrie Grimmett - who I know he didn't especially get along with, which maybe cost them the 1938 series whiich he didn't go on.
In an ironic twist of fate I became friends with a girl who lvied in the same road as Bradman, they (her family) said he was generally ok, but you woulnd't see much of him but to be fair he was famous (incredibly so) for the best part of 70 years by the time of his death, thats going too affect anybody.

He was in the phone book though because when my Grandfather docked on a boat from Sydney to UK he wanted to get in touch with Clarrie (1960s) he simply rang him up in a call box and got Clarrie details, far more innocent times.

reply

[–] Roy72 10 years ago

By far the biggest disgrace was how Larwood was treated on his return to England when the MCC tried to make him sign an apology letter to the ACB. HE refused point blank as he had been following the instructions of his captain to the letter.

He never played for England again, this was appalling treatment of a player and was clearly an attempt to make a "player" carry the can rather than one of the "gentleman".

Roy 72.

reply

[–] blufftoni 10 years ago

Agree that the treatment of Larwood by the MCC was a disgrace, but they were very different times and attitudes.

Larwood's biography by Duncan Hamilton is a great read and it's one of the supreme ironies of sport that Larwood settled in and was treated better by Australia after the 1932/3 series than he was by England.

reply

[–] Prismark10 9 years ago

Well Larwood did get a belated MBE a fey years before he died by the British government.

Its that man again!!

reply