crumpytv

This is a contemporary drama and contains language and/or attitudes that some viewers, particularly those of a more mature generation, the Silent Majority, will find offensive.

Why has it become apparently acceptable to have so much profanity in supposedly entertainment productions? It is literally supposed to be an entertainment, not a medium to create a profane culture. Current generations are being brought up to think this is normal. Is it normal? It never used to be. The worst language I have ever encountered was in the school playground in the 1960s, but it was not prevalent in general society, certainly not in TV and films. So, when and where was the decision made, and by whom, to decide it as being acceptable to allow this sort of language into the lounges of the population where it is not welcome?

Unfortunately turning off is becoming less of an option as it is literally in every drama and most contemporary so called comedies.

In this case I did turn it off ... after 2 minutes of simulated oral sex and profanities I did not feel inclined to give it any more of my time.

To be honest, at three episodes it was two episodes too long.

The way it was being presented one expected some new revelations being uncovered, but there were not any.

There was a lot of going over the same ground and constant references to the law, as it stood, in 1955. That being the case it is no use saying that if tried in present day things would have been different, because that is obvious. There is no death penalty so Ruth Ellis would not have been executed.

At the end I was left to think that as the law stood in 1955 there was no alternative to the death sentence because Ruth Ellis admitted the crime and refused to offer any mitigating circumstances.

In the first episode heavy emphasis was put on the fact that Ellis's son, Andre, although only 10 years old, was never questioned. Also, his grandparent's were alleged to have told him not to say anything if questioned. I big "why" was made much of but no further reference was made, but it became obvious that Andre's evidence would have served the prosecution rather than the defence in that he witnessed Ellis practicing firing a gun.

With a drama on ITV (A Cruel Love: The Ruth Ellis Story) as well as a supporting documentary (A Cruel Love: The Ruth Ellis Story), this one was one too many.

The ITV documentary covered the same ground, highlighted some extras and was more concise encompassed within a single episode.

This drama portrays life in the 1930s of the extraordinary Mitford family.

In fact it could have been called Extraordinary rather than Outrageous.

The protagonist is Nancy Mitford who became an established author.

The telling of their lives underlines just how autobiographical Nancy's most famous publications really are, The Pursuit of Love and Love in a Cold Climate.

Their pursuit of love wasn't really love at all, it was the pursuit of an eligible men with an income that would keep the Mitford sisters in the style of life to which they were accustomed.

As such, in the 1930s, they had very little to offer and their whole existence seemed to be aimed at "coming out" or presented to society at the annual debutants ball.

Very shallow indeed, but these were not ordinary women they held very strong views not always in alignment with one another, so much so that Unity and Diana finding themselves embroiled in Fascism.

Anyway, it is a good drama and is enhanced with a mainly unfamiliar cast. Only Anna Chancellor, as the mother, being instantly recognizable.