A Cruel Love: The Ruth Ellis Story

Lucy Boynton deserves more than a rating of 7 for her brave portrayal of Ruth Ellis, but "A Cruel Love" suffers from a shallow screenplay by Kelly Jones. The same few facts are told over and over: that she loved David Blakely (Laurie Davidson) to a fault, that she holds herself guilty and responsible for his murder. We learn little about Ruth's early life, or her marriage, and her children are reduced to props. She got solid help from the actors Toby Stephens and Toby Jones, though why Jones chose to whisper every single line of dialog was beyond me. As for Mark Stanley playing Desmond Cusson, the man devoted to her, he barely makes an impression.

The production design by Stephen Campbell is particularly commendable for its bold, dark colors and period sets. I didn't understand how Ruth could afford the array of dresses in her wardrobe, given that she wasn't even able to afford rent, but I took it for eye candy. The series could easily have been three episodes instead of four, except for one thing: when Boynton is on the screen, all you want is more.

As with the film Let Him Have It, Iit's hard to do a real life story but, at least 70 years on, there are few people around to state how lose to the truth the characters and the facts are.

There is a top cast here but most of them do seem to be playing themselves. Lucy Boynton is just like the posh girl she played in Why Didn't They Ask Evans, Joe Armstrong does a poor job trying not to remind us of his dad in New Tricks, Toby Jones is Mr Bates, that metal detector guy and all his other roles rolled into one while Mark Stanley puts on a moustache and glasses trying to hope we don't remember him from Happy Valley while Julie Stevenson tries not to play the psychologist from Professor T.

Admittedly, Nigel Havers does a good job playing his grandad assuming his grandad was just like Nigel Havers.

All this window dressing, including great deal on 1950s cars and styles, doesn't hide the fact that in all modern dramas, men are portrayed as weak or evil even in true crime dramas set 70 years ago.

The swipe at the establishment of the day is understandable. Ellis is shown to be a common girl doing well for herself in business but she has no power of the establishment and the old school tie.

A fair watch but you don't put your best shows on tv in the spring. A modern feminist attack on an old story.

Ruth Ellis This is story that is both fascinating and heart breaking that I was looking forward to. There is place for a discussion about the need for the ultimate justice to be delivered whilst also not shying away from its mistakes. Or as in the case whether like France there should be a place for a "crime of passion" is crime passionnel. It refers to a violent crime, such as murder, that is committed due to a strong impulse, like anger or jealousy.

But this film sadly is not it. First of all this is just too serious a topic for us to be distracted by "the message", its imposition here is inappropriate. My first impression however is to be frustrated by the poor set design and dialogue. What was the weird railway like carriage that was I think meant to be a café? If anyone wants to know they looked like then watch "Vera Drake" or "The Krays" or "Look Back in Anger". The sets are just jarringly inauthentic.

When she calls someone "pompous" I laughed out loud. Who wrote the dialogue I wondered. Then I saw Kelly Jones wrote the dialogue and she is posh from Oxford. Fair enough. But what about those accents? They sound like Dick Van Dyke, the casting is wrong.

Lastly ALL the men are bad. Horrible, nasty. Come on now this trope is just such a bore.

I'm old enough to remember capital punishment and well remember the Christie case of 10 Rillington Place because it was so horrific. I can't remember the Ruth Ellis case though but may have just forgotten it. Christie deserved to be executed but Ellis probably not. What bothered me watching this mini series, starring Lucy Boynton as Ellis, highlighted for me how little discrimination there was between the two killers I've mentioned. If found guilty, they were hanged, regardless of the obvious differences in their motives. Ellis' was a crime of passion and caused her to lose control, whereas Christie was just evil. The Ellis case helped to end our barbaric sentencing procedure and blanket death sentences.

To the series, Lucy does a fair job of portraying Ruth although I thought she was a bit posh. Ellis was Welsh and the accent seemed wrong. Toby Jones I love to watch in anything as his mastery of the camera is always a joy. Nigel Havers pops up playing his own grandfather, Cecil, who had to sentence Ruth. Nigel has said that his grandfather was upset with this case and tried unsuccessfully to have it overturned.

Ruth murdered her lover David, by shooting him at close range four times as he came out of a pub. The series shows their relationship and subsequent turn of events. I do wish that current casting didn't distort history as we know Ruth's prison warden was not as shown in the series.

It kept me watching in spite of knowing the outcome, mainly because I like the leading actors and the directing was good.

My father a WW2 veteran, he volunteered from Jamaica to serve in the RAF aged 18. After he was demobbed he returned to the UK in 1947. He was here when a great number of the notorious capital cases were tried & gross miscarriages of justice took place. I asked him about Ruth Ellis when an earlier series was made, he said that whilst she did not help herself by appearing more sympathetic, she should not have been hanged. He told me that he was vehemently against capital punishment. I watched the series and I could not fail to be moved by her situation especially knowing the effect that her execution had on her family as it cast a long shadow. Truly shocking & I am glad that capital punishment has been eradicated from the UK justice system.