The Gallows Pole

It might seem strange to some that in the rancid poverty and disease of the 18th Century, people didn't act, talk or swear in the same manner as Laurence Oliver in the Hays Code of the 1940's, but it seems logical that the mostly uneducated, underprivileged classes, now even worse off thanks to The Industrial Revolution might conceivably be quite annoyed, most of the time.

Downton already exists as a TV show, which is fine, but is written from exactly the other end of the same principle. Also best not to dignify the argument that there were " people who wouldn't have been there" as we cannot all hear dog whistles. Best to just check the facts there.

Having said that, it's a little bit too Steven Knight for me, it's certainly a placeholder episode and naturally slower for it. It's good to see the old TIE crew finally back, and the pace will definitely pick up come episode two.

The cinematography, especially at the beginning, should win awards.

I've rarely seen an opening episode with so little action and so much rambling pointless dialogue. I'm a huge fan of Shane Meadows and have been since the 90's but the Gallows Pole is I'm afraid a big old-fashioned fail.

Tonally there were some very odd choices, the dialogue was completely modern and it was the sweariest script I've seen on the BBC in many a year with constant effing and blinding that added nothing and will turn lots of people off.

The cast was very hit and miss with no stand outs for me, protagonist David was a shouty, sweary enigma. The weakest element was definitely the script, in this case adapted by the writer of the original novel himself. The dialogue was really verbose with tons of over-written exposition.

Bizarre credits sequence and strangely shot in widescreen which added nothing. At times it resembled a weak 1760's version of Brassic. I gave it to the end of the episode, but I'm out now.

Well - this seems to have split people! Lots of 1/10's, lots of 10/10's!

1/10 or 10/10? I'd suggest neither mark-giver is really worthy of any attention?

It's an informative, well-delivered and infectious depiction of the real story of the Cragg Valley Coiners - a community of cottage weavers who, deprived of their trade during the early years of the industrial revolution, turned to a much simpler, though criminal, way of making money.

The nature of the crime is clearly played out as the local squire gets aboard - coin-cutting. Now, we may know similar modern parallels, but this was simply edging the gold from guineas to make more guineas. Incidentally, the Cragg Valley Coin Cutters cause a major problem to the British economy at the time.

Wooden acting? Give me a break. Shane Meadows is a master at allowing improvisation. I love it. It's intended, btw.

I've seen all of Shane Meadow's work, apart from his doc on The Stone Roses. I've loved all of it. This, not so much.

Not sure what to think of this adaptation of a novel by Benjamin Myers.

The beginning of episode one had hints of Ben Wheatley's A Field in England. Once past the slightly surreal section, we get to what Meadows does best: cast improvisation. What we get is history in Meadows style. This Is England 1765. It's initially jarring, but I got used to it. However some scenes needed a better editor. Dialogue exchanges tended to go on longer than needed with no plot development whatsoever.

On the positive, Meadows provides a non traditional, raw look at Yorkshire in the mid 18th century. It's grim up North.

The music choices are superb, mixing folk with psych rock, and traditional songs sung by the cast. I particularly liked the tracks by Goat. Easily found on bandcamp by the way.

This three part series was clearly meant to be continued. Anyone familiar with the book and/or the history, will know the grisly details of where this story ends up at. The series seemed like an introduction.

Whilst not the best of Shane Meadows work, in my view, doesn't mean to say I wouldn't watch a second series. I feel there's more to offer.

Prior to this everything Shane Meadows has touched has been gold. Unfortunately bringing his oft-repeated style of improvisational dialogue into a period drama is a misfire.

I do have an issue with a period drama that doesn't quite stick to the period it's supposedly portraying. The trouble with actors improvising as a character from another time is that they won't always be able to stay 100% in that character without occasionally slipping and using modern parlance, which happens quite often here.

I managed two out of the three episodes and really could not continue to the last one. The pacing is at a snail's pace which is borne out of unnecessarily-long scenes of constant 'natural' talking which if given a proper script would've tightened it up and made for sharper dialogue thus giving it an energy instead of the sleep-inducing borefest it quickly became.