Executscan Expected more

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

malmborgimplano-92-599820 Fine acting, good production values and a butt-stupid script characterize this series, which follows the same hoary old formula as any number of women's fictions from the past hundred years or so, notably "Gone With The Wind" and "Forever Amber." The beautiful, free-spirited, lusty heroine plunges recklessly from adventure to adventure and man to man, running smack into famous historical characters at every turn. Please note that the title at the beginning of each episode claiming that this is a true story is a lie. There was never any such person as Angelica Fanshawe, though there actually was a guy named Edward Sexby. It's too bad no one had the idea of eliminating the character of Angelica altogether and just making the series "Sexby" instead.Capaldi doesn't have a whole lot of screen time as Charles I and nothing approaching a coherent character to play, but he pulls it all together nevertheless and creates a memorable figure of quiet authority not that unlike his Cardinal Richelieu in "The Musketeers." His performance makes the execution scene absolutely riveting, despite the thoroughly stupid decision to intercut it with the execution of the fictional Angelica, who's hanged but gets better after Sexby gives her CPR. Did I actually give this thing a 6? I went and changed it to a 5. 5 for Capaldi and others like Andrea Riseborough, John Simm and Dominic West who gave their considerable talents to making this silly spleeb.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU The true story of Angelica Fanshawe, they say it is, but that is secondary to the real interest of this mini-series. Born close to the royal court of Charles I, married within that closed sanctuary, closed especially to what other people may think, and particularly repressive with all those that represented some kind of danger for the crown, she was confronted with a time when truth was the master word of everyone, love the premium of every one and yet the everyday reality was sectarianism and violence directed at all those who differed from you, no matter where you stood.Her story could be reduced to a series of husbands or to a series of man friends or to a series of failures with a successful birth at the end. That's what makes this film striking if not shocking at times with the extreme confrontation of the audience to excessive violence and all other types of executions, corporeal punishments, absolute deprivation of everything, victimization and injustice. And there is not one camp in this full array of differences that is better than the others.But I think this film goes a long way beyond these details and gritty small impressive elements. First of all it is rather clear on the "constitutional debate". The king is of divine nature and has no reason to share his power which is divine and absolute. Parliament, not clearly identified as the representative of the upcoming merchant bourgeoisie whose power was founded on the possession of the merchant fleet, of practically all ships in England, and the control over all sailors, is unable to get out of its small petty meaningless, except for them of course, effete and useless debate on some obtuse religious questions like predestination and the Eucharist, holy sacraments and contact with god, and eventually the right of the people (what people when parliament was elected by a few tens of thousands of propertied people?) to dismiss the king if his connection with the people (what people again.) got discontinued. They were no longer in touch, if they had ever been, with the needs and desires of simple people.The film insists in fact a lot on the Levelers, those people who defended the idea that the land was the property of those who tilled it and that everyone was supposed to share equally with everyone else. They were hunted by the king's men because they were seen as the most dangerous anti-royal enemies since they wanted the end of monarchy and the shift to an equalitarian republic. On the other side they were equally hunted by Cromwell's supporters because Cromwell was not for a republic, was a direct representative of the mercantile bourgeoisie and was against equal sharing, and yet at the same time he was not for a republic and believed deep in himself this country could only be one-handedly governed by a single man, which he resigned to do himself when no compromise could be found with the king.The film is absolutely silent, alas, on the various wars in their details: the two civil wars, and then the Irish war and then the Scottish war and then the war with Spain. The first two were against the king and ended with his bodily shortening. The next one was a bloody massacre based on the idea that Catholics had fallen down to lower than animals since they were able to let their own children starve, if not help them a little bit. The Scottish episode is not represented and the Spanish caper is not even mentioned because it confirmed a radical change that had started under Elizabeth I when she had to mobilize the country against Spain. In both cases the Parliament was the key to that demand because the owners of the ships and the employers of the sailors were all directly in parliament or represented in and by parliament. So Elizabeth gave some powers to parliament over taxation for example, in order to get what she wanted: ships and sailors. Cromwell went even further. He had to summon and convene a parliament he had violently disbanded.Why forget these events that are just coming to the beginning of the end in Ireland, that was solved in Scotland with devolution, and that is the basis of the tremendous move England was able to initiate in the Christian world towards a democratic parliamentary elective system that will take fifty years after the Glorious Revolution (1660) to establish fundamental human rights like Habeas Corpus, the freedom of the press and of publication. That's a shortcoming of great size in the film but that does not prevent us from feeling the happy ending of the Commonwealth in the Glorious Revolution that was to bring a new batch of difficulties and this time the peaceful revocation of the king by parliament in a law that will establish the first constitutional monarchy in the world, a real first step towards the American Revolution and then the French Revolution.After this period no one could say like Charles I: "Give me one instance of a king being dismissed by a parliament!" Charles I was the first in 1649. James II will be the second in 1688. That's really the end of feudalism and its theory of absolute kings by divine appointment.But nevertheless the show is beautifully filmed and grandiosely performed.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

freemantle_uk The English Civil War has often been over looked as a subject for drama, with most films being very inaccurate. The Civil War was a important watershed moment in English history, showing a king can be overthrown, strengthen Parliament, reformed the English army and in the end limits power the power of kings and a tyrant. The Devil's Whore is also a new step for Channel Four, because they don't normally make costume dramas (BBC normally makes them). Channel Four focus has often been documentaries, buying good American programmes, and make comedy series like Peep Show and the Inbetweeners.The Devil's Whore has a similar approach to Rome, focusing on a fictional character who becomes involved in historical events and meets famous historical people.The focus of the programme is on Angelica Fanshawe (Andrea Riseborough), an aristocratic woman from a Catholic background. She has rejected God and sees the Devil because her mother ran off to become a nun. The show starts off with Angelica being a member of the Queen's household just before the English Civil War. But as the Civil War starts and Angelica is forced out King Charles I's camp she allies her herself with political radicals like the Levellers. She also falls in love with soldier and political radical Edward Sexby (John Sims). Angelica also gets very close to honest John Lilburne (Tom Goodman-Hill), a popular political radical, and she acts as his champion to Charles I (Peter Capaldi) and Oliver Cromwell (Dominic West).If you are excepting an action-packed war drama, you will be disappointed because they are few battle scenes. But there is some good sword fights which are more realistic then others in visual media. The strength of the show is the character drama, about Angelica and her struggles. The other main strength is the political background, from Charles I's struggles to Parliament, to Oliver Cromwell becoming no more then a military dictator. The history is actuate for the most part, for example, in English culture some people like to idealise Oliver Cromwell as a great liberator: in real life he took over through a military coup, oppressed dissenting voices and enforced his puritan views on the nation, as well being a butcher to Irish Catholics in Drogheda and Wexford.They is a excellent cast, having talented actors like John Sim, Dominic West, Michael Fassbender and Peter Capaldi (who I was particularly impressed with). Anglea Riseborough is a strong newcomer, who is able to hold her own with all these talented people. She turns her character from a lost young woman to a powerful voice of dissent. John Sim, Dominic West, Tom Goodman-Hill and Maxine Peake are also very good in their roles. The production values were excellent, and with a budget of £7 Million, it was put to good use. The set designer and historical scenes were created really well, showing that towns, cities and even important building like Parliament were not very grant. They was an earthy feel to show. Marc Munden was a good director, able to combine all the elements together. He gets the best out of his actors and does some good scenes. He makes the violence realistic and characters like Sexby were heavily scared.This show was not perfect, they were some problems. Some of the subplots did not lead anywhere, the surreal elements did not work for me, especially because of the realistic sitting, and there were historical inaccuracies, such as the omissions of characters like John Pym and Sir Thomas Fairfax. But the programme does show the complex political background with the different schools of thought during the mid-17th century.It is worthy viewing.

jhsteel I can't believe that I know so little about the English Civil War and this series has stimulated me to learn more. The characters were portrayed so well that I feel I want to know so much more about those who were real people. John Simm's performance as Edward Sexby haunts me because he spent so much time longing for a relationship with Angelica, then finally reached his goal, only to move away from her again towards another greater goal. It was inspiring, and I was captivated by the visual impact and the political power of the plot. Like the West Wing, the Devil's Whore managed to make me interested in political issues that may seem dull elsewhere. Oliver Cromwell came across as a real man and most of the real historical figures were 3-dimensional. Angelica was fascinating and powerful, and it doesn't matter that she was not real historically - she held the story together. The details of the struggle between the monarch and the parliamentarians is very gripping and is at the roots of our present system of democracy - probably the model for all democracies. As a Quaker, I need to know as much as possible about this period in English history, because out of the many religious and political groups which grew up in the turbulence of the 17th century, the Society of Friends is one that has survived adapted to modern life - something that the Ranters and Levellers were unable to do.Overall, my main impression was one of fascination with the story of Angelica's life and Sexby's devotion to her - it was a great inspiring tale. Such a shame that it had to be cut down from 12 episodes to 4 - how much more would we have gained if we could have seen all that was planned?