User reviews

The most important thing to realize about David Eldridge's adaptation of the book by Hallie Rubenhold was the lack of power given to any wife in the eighteenth century. They were simply regarded as a husband's property, denied any possibility for self- determination. This film explored the ways in which the eponymous central character (Natalie Dormer) tried to circumnavigate the law.

Told through flashbacks, we learned how Lady Worsley had a sexless marriage to Sir Richard (Shaun Evans). Rather he forced his spouse to make love to a succession of titled nobles, while he watched them in the act through a keyhole - the supreme act of voyeurism. Unfortunately things go terribly wrong when Lady Worsley falls in love with Captain George Bisset (Aneurin Barnard). There follows a protracted court battle, where Sir Richard tries to obtain £20K in compensation from Captain George for hurt feelings, while steadfastly refusing to allow his wife a divorce.

Natalie Dormer portrays Lady Worsley as a woman trying to make the best of an impossible situation. Forced into a series of unwanted relationships to satisfy her husband's vicarious lust, she has cultivated an inscrutable outward shell as a means of self- protection. During the act of love-making her face remains impassive as she looks to her right at her husband staring through the keyhole. In public she maintains a similar expression, especially when confronting her husband over the possibility of divorce. In one sequence she is shown walking away from his stately home, her face staring impassively at the camera. No one, it seems, can penetrate her tough exterior.

Yet perhaps she needs to cultivate that facade in order to survive. Captain George comes across as something of a hypocrite who professes his undying love for Lady Worsley yet cannot accept the sexual humiliations she has undergone. He still believes in that patriarchal construction of female purity, especially in someone he hopes to marry. Eventually he decides to leave Lady Worsley as he proclaims in uncertain tones that he no longer loves her. Whether this is true or not is immaterial; we realize at this moment that he lacks any real moral or intellectual fiber, preferring instead to embrace the majority view that women should be servile to all males.

Although set in the eighteenth century, THE SCANDALOUS LADY W makes some important points about the necessity for female self- determination. Even in our so-called enlightened world, there are millions of women worldwide who are faced with similar dilemmas as experienced by Lady Worsley, and have to find the best means to negotiate them.

We're back to England in 1782, and the true story of the unusual goings on between Lord and Lady Worsley, back in a time when a man's wife was his property, and he was free to do with her as he wished. A little bit of time hopping shows the scene, Evans meets heiress Natalie Dormer who comes with a hefty dowry. They quickly marry, and it's not long before we discover Sir Richard has some unusual sexual appetites.

I am a big fan of Natalie Dormer plays Lady Seymour Worsley, she's proved she can play historical figures with ease, having given a superb performance as Anne Boleyn in the Tudors series, I've always thought she has something bewitching about her.

Shaun Evans is excellent as the very stern, slightly sordid Lord Richard Worsley. Being a huge Morse/Endeavour fan, I'm always keen to see him in other things, he does not disappoint.

The sets are stunningly lavish, with extremely high production values, the costumes are visually stunning, Dormer's green court outfit is fabulous.

The story is unusual, who'd have thought these events occurred back in the 18th century. I applaud the BBC trailer for making it appear as if she was a black widow, and a scheming woman, when actually the story is vastly different.

I must admit, I totally enjoyed the court scenes, sometimes when a drama switches to the courtrooms it can develop into melodrama, but the scenes are great. Why has the judge got a sheepskin rug on his head!!!

Thank you BBC, I really enjoyed it, long may these Period dramas continue

8/10

Well, there's a hour-and-a-half of my life I shan't get back!.. Simply awful-wooden acting (standing stiffly and looking vacantly into the middle distance does not give you poise-it merely looks like you're suffering from haemorrhoids) stilted dialogue (and the wrong language used, at that-I don't think I heard a single use of 'shall', 'should' or 'I am', but rather 'will', 'would' and I'm. People just didn't speak this way-let alone the glottal stop used instead of a final 't'...)-It might have helped if Shaun Evans hadn't grunted every line through his nose, or did he just have very bad cold during the whole shoot?.. At least Cpt Leversuch (Alex Beckett) and Mr Wallace (Craig Parkinson) managed to speak properly-the rest of the cast could do with a course of elocution lessons...

Too much makeup, bad costumes (this was 1782, not 1982-I half-expected Adam Ant to crawl ito view)... I suppose the set design was up to scratch, but the outdoor shoots were awful-this was not how pre-Regency London looked at all...

There was a time, you know, when the BBC could do this sort of thing standing on its head-now... Meh... Hallie Rubenhold, who co-wrote the screenplay, and wrote the book upon which it was based, calls herself a historian?.. Polite Society simply didn't behave like this in public-in private, behind closed doors, perhaps, but face and honour were all (see Lady Caroline Lamb and Lord Byron, who conducted a scurrilous affair in public 30 years later)... Lord Rochester had been dead for over one hundred years when these events occurred...

I've saved the worst for last-who, in (we assume) their right mind imagined that Natalie Dormer was right for this part?.. In addition to looking wrong, and dressing wrongly (see above), she was utterly incapable of delivering her lines without either a languid drawl, or a simper-I'm not sure which was worse... She wasn't even capable of walking properly in costume (see the final scene)!..

Oh, and one final thing, BBC, please stop showing British judges banging gavels in court!.. It has never happened, nor will it ever!..

I think we should demand our licence-payers' money back...

I was just looking for something available to fill a late evening via BBC iplayer and went for this - and now I'm off to bed feeling very happy. No need for me to repeat what has already been written in the higher scoring reviews, just to say they reflect my thoughts. However I was surprised by the couple of very low scoring reviews, so after reading them and being fed some doubts about the accuracy or integrity of the film I did some checking. Possibly the language/ dialect used may be slightly different to that of the time but the translation appears to be accurate i.e. the story is accurate. Also there are some comparison pictures of the actress and the real Lady W which are amazingly very close in likeness. Whilst viewing this drama I noticed nothing that made me think it was poor or cut price and have since found nothing false or inferior about the story or film. Therefore I can highly recommend this production which I found as good as any I have seen from the BBC and an enjoyable insight to early modern England and the evolution of gender relations. Worth paying my licence fee for :-)

Adams 5905 is absolutely right on every count. Natalie Dormer can hack it as a bit part in East Enders, but like most of the female actors today has no grasp of the language and pronunciation of the well-bred aristocrat or even the upper middle class. Joanna Lumley she is not!

As to the script - who begins a sentence with "Myself" as the nominative singular? Only the barely educated. There were several words not in common usage at that time, but why should we be surprised at the slap-dash writing and direction by people who have little formal classical education in English, let alone simple grammar?

Altogether laughable

England in 1782, and the true story ( unbelievable but it is true) of the unusual marriage between Lord and Lady Worsley. This is a time when a man's wife was his property, and he was free to do with her as he wished. The films beginning is a little confusing as it jumps back and forth but all becomes clearer as the film progresses.

Natalie Dormer as Lady Seymour Worsley was a perfect casting and she not only looks like the real Lady Seymour Worsley but acts in just the right way as far as I can tell. I notice some have criticised how she spoke etc, but I doubt there are any original recordings of her voice so who can say for sure whether she was always grammatically correct? She was from a wealthy family but I doubt that they ALL spoke like Joanna Lumley.

Shaun Evans is perfect as Lord Richard Worsley and portrays his weirdness as a perverted politician (has nothing changed?)

What I liked about the film was the ending, which I won't give away although many who studied history may already know, but the court scenes showing the jury's decision was priceless.

In all a good watchable film that deserves more credit than many seem to have given it.

The fact that this is a true story is so unbelievable. Not only was it scandalous for the 18th Century England, it would be quite shocking today. This is a handsomely made costume drama beautifully filmed and well acted but the story is so sordid and shocking for the 21st Century.

Natalie Dormer of the Tudors and GOT stars as Seymour Fleming a noblewoman in 18th Century England. She was an heiress. She married a man who turned out to be a pervert - he liked to watch her with other men. But in those days all a woman's property went to her husband upon marriage. When she fell in love with one of the other men and left her husband - he sued for "conversation" some kind of adultery damages. A sensational trial follows in which the other men testify. The outcome is bittersweet but the story is really fascinating.

An interesting commentary on women's rights in a marriage in the 18th Century. The story couldn't have been made portrayed on film explicitly in the past since it's so salacious.

This is a period movie length drama from the BBC that others probably would have turned into a lengthy miniseries. It felt like there was certainly lots of possible material to pad it out if they had gone down that route.

I gather the budget for this was quite tight due to current cuts at the BBC. It doesn't show mostly, but it felt a little under resourced at times.

Nevertheless its well acted by the whole cast and a very enjoyable story, especially given its based on true, if very unusual, events.

Natalie adds some glamor whilst Shaun Evans plays the eccentric husband in only a way he can.

Recommended.

So refreshing a period movie that doesn't try to mordernise itself. The music, the costumes, the make-up, the wigs, everything feels very authentic to the period. Faithful to the true history behind it, as far as I can tell. I'd love if it was longer, if it explored Lady W's life in France, for example. Acting was great, especially from Natalie Dormer. It's SO rare a period film that doesn't try to be "modern", "relatable to modern audiences" and all that, it was a delightful surprise to watch this. Some candle-lit scenes as well, just beautiful. And one minor detail: she wears a chemise under her corset, SO MANY period dramas get it wrong, it warmed my little historical fashion fixed heart.