The WW2 life and history of Air Chief Marshall Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris, Commander in Chief of RAF Bomber Command. He took Bomber Command from a minor, under-manned, badly equipped, low-priority unit to one of the most potent forces of the war. This all while struggling against superiors who had different priorities and against misguided agitators who had misgivings on how the war was being conducted.Decent historical drama. Shows well "Bomber" Harris's, and RAF Bomber Command's, contribution to the Allied victory in WW2. Shows the effort Harris made in getting Bomber Command to its status as one of WW2's most potent forces, and the tough decisions he had to make along the way.Does try to make it something more than that though, and therein lies the main negative aspect of the movie. There's is an element of revisionist history about it - all the self-indulgent pontificating from certain quarters about the morality of bombing cities. At least Harris has the last, and correct, word in that regard - winning the war is all that matters.Does also feel quite dry in its delivery. Showing some bomber crews in action, and all the preparation and courage that goes into a bombing raid, would have gone a long way to making the movie more interesting, gritty and engaging. The bomber crews are never really made flesh, ending up just being statistics.

With the talent involved, I just knew Bomber Harris would be a treat and it did not disappoint. Production values-wise, some may not find it the most appealing with its confined theatre sets-like look, personally it wasn't a problem at all- they are admirably accurate and evoke the period very well, the way it's photographed at least shows someone with skill- as here it's not the production values that are most important but the story and Bomber Harris himself. Both of which are done wonderfully in this drama. The music cleverly uses music of the WWII period which gives it an evocative and nostalgic approach, likewise with the hauntingly melancholic Moonlight Sonata by Beethoven, matching equally the harrowing images seen on screen, seen with the use of footage of bombing raids. Bomber Harris is brilliantly written, the script is filled with lines that are thought-provoking and inspiring, Harris being shown with his qualities and his faults with no extremities. The story is compelling throughout and will suit anybody regardless of how much or how little you know of the man, it is really interesting for those new to the subject and want to know more and people already familiar with it will admire how Bomber Harris never tries to be one-sided or open-or-shut. Harris was a very controversial person(which I think was a potential problem for the story, sometimes the more controversial the person or subject the film or drama is on the more difficult they would be to portray without insulting), and Bomber Harris shows that clearly through not making him either a good or bad person. Not just that but instead of outright saying that he was good or bad Bomber Harris leaves it to the viewer to decide, which aside from how the story was executed was what made the drama as interesting as it was. The direction keeps things running smoothly, and the supporting cast are great particularly Robert Hardy who plays Churchill as if born to play him. But aside from the quality of the writing and storytelling, the best thing about Bomber Harris is the lead performance of John Thaw, Thaw was one of Britain's greatest actors in my view who was never less than good(again opinion) and judging from his mesmerising performance here this has to be one of his best performances. All in all, wonderfully done in all areas. 10/10 Bethany Cox

I find it almost impossible to judge the historical accuracy -- or the endorsed point of view, whatever it is -- because what the biographical film tells us seems to smooth over, justify, or simply leave out much of what has come to be the received wisdom.Okay. Arthur Harris has always been involved in one argument after another. One of the big ones involved Harris's advocacy of carpet bombing over cities at night, as opposed to the USAAF's proclivity for sending heavily armed airplanes in the daytime to carry out precision bombing of military targets during the day time. The Americans thought that their "Flying Fortresses", bristling with heavy machine guns, could drop their bombs into a "pickle barrel" with the help of their miraculous Norden bombsight. Harris had always thought it foolish to destroy the enemy in bits and pieces. We repeatedly seem him placing his fingertip with a flourish on a map and shouting, "Berlin -- destroy it!", and "Hamburg! -- Wipe it out!" I'm simplifying here in order to save space, but both Harris and the Americans were wrong. Both the night-time and day-time campaigns became so costly that the game wasn't worth the candle. Both were suspended until improved technology could justify them. Yet the film, if anything shows us Harris's tactics are shown as sensible. The US General Spaatz cries on camera describing his losses. What's confusing is not that one tactic is demonstrably better than the other but that both failed -- and this is never mentioned in the movie.Harris pushed his view -- and he does so admirably here through the agency of the late John Thaw. According to this portrait, Harris was a kind of moral nihilist. If somebody takes a poke at you, you hit him back as fast as you can, and where it hurts the most. It all sounds manly and dashing, doesn't it? George S. Patton would have applauded. No doubt Harris had moments during which he must have wondered, but in general it was "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." All very well, but if both sides adopt that attitude you have what's been called the Massacre of Malmedy, for which the Allies executed some German generals after the war. But why should the Germans not have murdered the POWs at Malmedy? If the object is to flatten the opposition by any means available, why take prisoners who will, after all, only hamper the war effort? If war has no ethical framework, why should "we" be different from "them"? The larger -- the much larger picture -- is barely brought up towards the end and then dismissed with one or two quips by Harris. The writers clearly don't want to deal with these ethical issues, or with Harris either for that matter. Throughout, his character is never softened. He doesn't have a wife or a dog or a stamp collection. But neither is his character questioned. He's forceful, vigorous, without humor, plain spoken, and calls "BS" what it is. There's a lot to like in a leader like that. Only let us all get down on our knees, brothers and sisters, let us bow our heads, you men and women of steely fortitude, and pray to Allmight God that if we ever have another global conflict, nobody like Arthur Harris is around to run it for us.If, after the next go round, there were only one person left alive on the planet, and that person was one of "ours", Harris and others of his first-order ilk might have the satisfaction of saying we "won."

John Thaw is excellent in this 1989 TV drama about Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris which was nominated for three BAFTA awards.The film begins in early 1942 when Harris takes over RAF bomber command. Convinced that the only way to win the war is by saturation bombing of German cities, this movie raises ethical issues about the tactics of bombing civilians. After the retaliatory strikes on German cities as reprisals for the Blitz by the Luftwaffe there was a directional shift from 'area bombing' as the strategic bombing of major cities was called, towards 'precision' bombing of military and strategic targets.Harris is convinced that only by engaging major German cities will the war be ended swiftly but is hampered by insufficient aircraft poorly equipped for endurance bombing raids, the lack of coordinated efforts by American bomber command (who were focused upon strategic targets - despite their heavy losses) and moral opposition from higher authorities.Harris wins enough approval to begin conducting 1000 bomber raids on Germany and pushes for a raid on Berlin. Area bombing remains an unpopular strategy and the successful raid on the Ruhr dams by 617 squadron begins to win opinion that favours the continuing strategy of precision bombing raids.As the general direction of bombing raids swings towards supporting Operation Overlord and the D Day landings Harris is convinced that this will prolong the war and lead to greater loss of life on both sides of the conflict.In particular Harris believes that D Day is unnecessary and will simply involve needless loss of life, an opinion forged by his own action in the trenches of WWI, and enlists the support from Churchill to continue with his area bombing campaign.The bombing of Dresden produces negative publicity when dubbed 'terror bombing' by the news media and support for Harris severely wanes."Every German city is not worth the bones of one British Grenadier" states Harris.Both the allies and Germany believed that air superiority and the strategic bombing of aircraft factories, crude oil manufacture, synthetic oil manufacture, rubber production, ball bearing factories and railways etc. is what significantly contributed to win the war in Europe. The war in the far east still raged on however and only ended by the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Was Harris correct then? Is area bombing the only effective way to end armed conflict during war? 'Bomber Harris' cleverly raises these questions in this superb film. Despite their importance and contribution towards winning the war no campaign medal was ever issued for members of bomber command.Edited with actual footage of bombing raids and music from the era adds to the nostalgic atmosphere of this film and helps preserve the era. Superb use is made throughout of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata no doubt meant to emphasis the RAF's strategy of bombing by moonlight.A truly excellent film with superb acting from Thaw and definitely one to watch.