Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 16:25:41 GMT
Mr Crafty wasn't that impressed either.
|
|
|
Post by Miranda on Nov 1, 2016 16:28:34 GMT
I finished watching it but not sure I'll bother with the next one.
|
|
|
Post by pearl06 on Nov 1, 2016 20:04:43 GMT
Very rushed, but compelling. I wish they'd gone into more detail, taken it all a bit more slowly and made it a longer series. Sh*gging that fella came from nowhere, I would have liked a bit more of a run up to that and that first time it seemed as if he p*netrated her through several layers of clothing - how clever is that?! Robin Hood can do anything!
|
|
|
Post by superdreen on Nov 2, 2016 18:07:34 GMT
I haven't actually watched this yet , but at my local history talk today , the speakers topic was coincidentally Mary Ann Cotton. Although she said the programme was interesting she felt it was vague and rushed. Also she showed a picture of Mary Ann, I suggest you google her and you can see her picture online - l don't know how to attach it to this message- you will see how different she is to the actress portraying her.
|
|
|
Post by Miranda on Nov 2, 2016 18:09:42 GMT
She's also middle-aged in that picture. And sexy doesn't equate to pretty.
|
|
|
Post by marion on Nov 2, 2016 18:11:38 GMT
I did read somewhere (RT perhaps) that the media were told to make her look unattractive as she was such a wicked woman......
|
|
|
Post by LoopyLobes on Nov 2, 2016 19:27:42 GMT
Just had a look at her photo for myself. Forty one when she died, I consider that still young, I'm older than that and I don't consider myself middle aged, mind you times were of course much harder then. Not pretty or sexy looking. Perhaps she was just very... available...?
|
|
|
Post by Miranda on Nov 2, 2016 19:35:11 GMT
You can't possibly know what she looked like from a prison photo. Or any Victorian photo. Mainly because of how long the sitter had to stay still. It meant an unnatural expression and a lack of life in the face. And forty-one was quite old for a poor working-class woman in Victorian times. By today's standards they look 55 - 60 years old. She'd had eleven children, done a lot of hard manual labour and had a rotten diet. So no, she wouldn't be gorgeous at 40 years old. And sex appeal often has nothing to do with looks. The sexiest woman I know takes a rotten photo but she has to beat men off with a stick. Even at the age she is now!
|
|
|
Post by LoopyLobes on Nov 3, 2016 10:12:00 GMT
Miranda, love, I'm 52 and I am very well aware of all that ^. I can only go by that photo because it seems to be the only one there is and I have based my judgement on that and I am entitled to my view without being spoken down to, maybe that wasn't your intention, but it's certainly the way that post came across to me, forgive me if I'm wrong.
My grandmothers had 11 children and 14 children, not during Victorian times, but still during hard times and yes, they certainly looked older at 52 than I do now and that was mostly down to the clothes they wore - they dressed old for their ages, I feel. However, my Mum's mother certainly still looked beautiful (genuinely beautiful) at 46 when she had her last child. I have photos, lots of them, to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by Miranda on Nov 3, 2016 10:30:33 GMT
Well, my apologies. I just thought it was a bit harsh to assume she was an ugly slut from one photo.
|
|
|
Post by LoopyLobes on Nov 3, 2016 10:33:46 GMT
Did I ever say the words "ugly slut"? No, you're right, of course, I'm sure she was perfectly lovely in every way if you disregard the murderous tendencies.
|
|
|
Post by Miranda on Nov 3, 2016 10:46:05 GMT
Ok, if you're going to be silly, I guess we are done.
|
|
|
Post by LoopyLobes on Nov 8, 2016 16:24:41 GMT
What did you all think of the second half then? What a gal, eh?!
|
|
|
Post by marion on Nov 8, 2016 16:33:25 GMT
Well it was a bit relentless wasn't it? I was saying "have a cup of tea" whenever she approached anyone almost! The thing was, she never seemed to improve her situation after murdering yet another person.... and I was unconvinced by the sorrow over the loss of Isabella considering she bumped off two if not three (if not more) of her other children! Interesting psychologically if she could be so uninvolved with them yet feel for the girl. So although I stuck with it and found the story interesting, I also found it rather unengaging emotionally.
|
|
|
Post by vicky on Nov 8, 2016 19:42:06 GMT
It was way too condensed. I thought the first episode was well done ...... as a scene-setter. I expected the second one to go into more detail as to how she was caught, what motivated her (other than being a nasty piece of work!) and what happened at her trial. As it was, we saw absolutely nothing about the trial: she was arrested and the next thing we knew, she was being hung.
When a policeman said, after her arrest, " We will have to dig them all up", what did he mean by "all"? The Robinson children, her latest husband and her lover or everyone she had come into contact with who had died? That would have been a long and mammoth task and I don't thihk it could have been done in the time frame. Also, what would the arsenic have stayed traceable after a long time? She was only found guilty of murdering Charlie Cotton so I suspect that was all she could be charged with in reality. I suspect a lot of the story of Mary Ann Cotton's crimes is conjecture and that is why so much was packed in to this programme, to suggest that she killed practically everyone who crossed her. I was very surprised her step father managed to avoid having a nice cup of tea made for him!
It was all a bit unsatisfactory in the end. It would probably have been better to do 6 one hour episodes than condensing such a complex crime story into two 90 minute ones.... minus ad breaks, of course.
|
|