The following is commentary on Episode No. 50 ("Two Fathers") from members of AFAMILYATWAR-LIST. If you wish to add your thoughts to what is being said on this page, become a part of our discussion group by clicking the "Join" button.
Richard Veit
Only one of the principal characters from “A Family at War” appears in “Two Fathers,” a statistical distinction that this episode shares with four others in the series. Three of them in that category (“For Strategic Reasons,” “A Lesson in War,” and “Hazard”) revolve around Philip Ashton, another (“Breaking Point”) follows David Ashton, and this one centres upon Edwin Ashton. What makes the setting of “Two Father’s” so different from those others is that it takes place not during the war at all but several weeks after the war has ended.
It is November of 1945, and Edwin has received a cryptic message from an Army sergeant in Germany, suggesting that Philip’s death was of a questionable nature. Edwin decides to investigate the circumstances surrounding the inexplicable passing of his most gifted son, who Edwin says “was going to do everything I never did.”
Like a good murder mystery, “Two Fathers” unfolds at a leisurely pace, revealing one bit of evidence at a time and leading up to a surprise conclusion that is all the more tragic for where the culpability is determined by authorities to lie.
Heading a uniformly brilliant cast, Colin Douglas shines as the Ashton patriarch, who must bear the sorrow of losing another son to the effects of war. Philip’s death, unlike Robert’s four years earlier, is particularly ironic in that he is cut down while engaged in a humanitarian effort, trying to assist the German people. Another cast member who should be singled out for special praise here is Keith Barron, in the pivotal role of Major Harkness. Though quite forceful when he needs to be (as in his dealings with the persistent Hellmut Regler), this judicious officer has a compassionate side that serves Edwin well in his poignant search for the truth. And then, of course, there is the remarkable Kenneth Colley, whose uncannily natural acting style convinces viewers that Sergeant Jago is an actual person who stands before us, magically removing from detection any pretext of his art. (See him in the underappreciated 1988 film A Summer Story for a subtle characterisation that will remain etched in your memory.)
Some random comments about “Two Fathers”…
The stark visuals of a war-torn German city are captured with unblinking grimness by director Bob Hird’s cameras. Where in the world, in the early 1970s, did such a desolate setting exist? Was this perhaps some massive urban-renewal project that happened to coincide with the production schedule of “A Family at War”?
Music, not so very important in the series as a whole, nonetheless plays a significant role in this episode, firmly establishing the time frame of “Two Fathers.” In the beer hall sequences, we hear “September Song” (huskily sung by local chanteuse Erika), “We’ll Meet Again,” “Bless ’Em All,” and “Roll Out the Barrel” to very good effect.
Incidentally, from 1968 to 1977, a span which included the period of shooting for this episode, Catherine Schell (Erika) was married to actor William Marlowe (who played Sergeant Oldcastle).
That dramatic final shot under the credits, when the camera pans right to show the unimaginable destruction, is a powerful one, a disturbing image that continues to bring the war home to modern audiences.
I have always presumed that Edwin is referring to Frau Regler when he gives her husband the welcome news that she will be declared “in need of care.” But the remark could just as likely apply to daughter Emmy Regler, who has become something of a street urchin. If so, this might justify Hellmut’s sarcastic retort, “Ironic. Now she’ll be taken care of.” Does anyone know for sure which of these was writer Alexander Baron’s intent?
Arthur Hellman
Regretfully, I cannot agree with the positive assessment of “Two Fathers.” To my mind, it was the one total failure in the entire series. I say this for two reasons.
First, Philip’s death came completely out of the blue. Nothing in any previous episode gave any clues that he might be in danger, let alone that he had died. This kind of thing happens in real life, but it’s not good dramaturgy.
Second, there is the suggestion (well, more than a suggestion) that Philip was killed by British bombs. This – together with the title – implied a moral equivalence between British bombing and Nazi bombing. Whatever the merits of that view (and I obviously don’t share it), it is quite out of character for the series.
I would be very much interested in hearing John Finch’s response to these comments. I am a great admirer of Family at War and of John’s work on the series, so for me the disappointment with this episode cuts very deep. (It does not, however, diminish that admiration.) And of course if there is something in the episode that I missed that caused me to reach erroneous conclusions, I would be happy to be corrected.
John Finch
Arthur Hellman's reaction to this episode is interesting. I had just a few doubts at the time. I watched it in Norway, where the series was enormously popular. Some Norwegians expressed similar views to Arthur's. I share Arthur's feelings about Allied/German bombing. Who started it is the usual reaction, and it's not a comment to be shrugged off. I think what carried the episode for me (some liked it very much in Norway) was the direction. At this time in the series we were really up against it, so I wasn't able to do my usual massive edit if I felt a script was not up to scratch. So far as the bombing comparison is concerned, however, I always felt that where a writer's point of view was adequately expressed, the fact that it was at variance with my own did not justify me changing it.
There were a number of episodes in the series which, had I had time to write them myself, I would have done differently, but we were really operating against the clock throughout.
Richard Veit
Arthur and John both make some excellent points, and certainly I join them in their feelings about Allied/German bombing. After all, as John says (and Edwin Ashton, too, for that matter), just who started it?
Personally, I do not sense that writer Alexander Baron intended to imply a moral equivalence between British bombing and Nazi bombing. What is now called "friendly fire" is simply a collateral danger of war, and so is its distant cousin, unexploded bombs that lie dormant for months, years, and even decades. While Major Harkness ultimately was willing to concede to Edwin that it was a British bomb that killed his son, that is a far cry from any assumption of RAF guilt. Philip just happened to be in the wrong place when a child accidentally detonated the bomb.
As for Philip's death coming out of the blue, that is true to a certain extent. However, in the previous episode, remember that Michael Armstrong did inform Edwin that Philip planned to stay in Germany in a humanitarian capacity, and I suppose that could be interpreted as some form of dramatic preparation for the audience.
