gmb0553 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 :-)

nicholls_les 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.

l_rawjalaurence 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.

Adams5905 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...