D-DAY 6.6.44 is a big-budget docu-drama by the BBC. The film mixes archive, dramatic scenes and interviews to tell the story of the Normandy Landings. There are two great problems with this docu-drama. The first is that it isn't very good. The second is that the history on display is very thin.
Docu-dramas are extremely difficult to get right. The dramatic scenes usually suffer from a paucity of money whilst the documentary aspect usually ends up being rather basic. This is precisely what happens here. The CGI is cheap and often quite obvious. The actors are mostly hammy and uniformly fail to get the small details about clothes, hair and voice right. The history is an extremely basic narrative that ignores the last two decades of academic research in favour of highlighting a few moments (Omaha, Merville, Operation Tiger) in order to dramatise them. The dramatic scenes are generally uninteresting, acting as expensive wallpaper.
The problem is that decent drama builds up character and narrative. A docu- drama like this has to juggle numerous narratives and lacks the time to really build up characters to make them compelling. A lack of cash means that the technical aspects also fail to be compelling. So the docu-drama fails dramatically against the hyper- technical combat scenes of BAND OF BROTHERS or the emotional impact of a film like ATTACK. Yet at the same time it lacks the historical knowledge to be a decent documentary. Instead it becomes an over-long hodge-podge. The only redeeming factor are the interviews, several of which are excellent. The researchers also deserve credit for finding a number of rare interviewees.
P.S. If you want how a docu-drama should be made then have a look at Peter Watkin's THE WAR GAME.
Docu-dramas are extremely difficult to get right. The dramatic scenes usually suffer from a paucity of money whilst the documentary aspect usually ends up being rather basic. This is precisely what happens here. The CGI is cheap and often quite obvious. The actors are mostly hammy and uniformly fail to get the small details about clothes, hair and voice right. The history is an extremely basic narrative that ignores the last two decades of academic research in favour of highlighting a few moments (Omaha, Merville, Operation Tiger) in order to dramatise them. The dramatic scenes are generally uninteresting, acting as expensive wallpaper.
The problem is that decent drama builds up character and narrative. A docu- drama like this has to juggle numerous narratives and lacks the time to really build up characters to make them compelling. A lack of cash means that the technical aspects also fail to be compelling. So the docu-drama fails dramatically against the hyper- technical combat scenes of BAND OF BROTHERS or the emotional impact of a film like ATTACK. Yet at the same time it lacks the historical knowledge to be a decent documentary. Instead it becomes an over-long hodge-podge. The only redeeming factor are the interviews, several of which are excellent. The researchers also deserve credit for finding a number of rare interviewees.
P.S. If you want how a docu-drama should be made then have a look at Peter Watkin's THE WAR GAME.