Marriage: With Sean Bean, Nicola Walker, Henry Lloyd-Hughes, and Chantelle Alle is a drama series that follows Ian and Emma, a married couple, as they navigate the uncertainties, ambiguities, hopes, concerns, risks, and gifts of a long-term relationship. The show is set to premiere on PBS Passport in Spring 2023 and stars James Bolam as Emma’s father, Gerry, and Henry Lloyd-Hughes as Emma’s boss Jamie. The drama has received 95% ratings and an average audience score of 45%.
The series follows Ian and Emma as they navigate the ups and downs of their marriage, dealing with the uncertainties, ambiguities, hopes, concerns, risks, and gifts of a difficult world. The show has moved up the charts by 6282 places and is currently available on the PBS Masterpiece Amazon Channel or as a download on Apple TV, Amazon Video, and Google Play Movies.
The series has been a popular choice for viewers, with its stellar cast including Nicola Walker and Sean Bean. The show has also been a topic of discussion on the BBC, with its cast including Nicola Walker and Sean Bean.
In October 2023, four PBS dramas, each in their second season, and two television premieres will return, including Marriage, co-starring PBS. The series will debut on some PBS stations on October 5, 2023, and will be available to stream on the PBS App.
📹 When Did Marriage Become about Love?
Did you know marrying for love is a pretty recent development in human history? A couple in love at a wedding may seem like theĀ …
What content is available on PBS Passport?
PBS Passport is a member benefit from PBS stations that gives donors and supporters access to quality public TV shows online. The PBS Passport library has episodes from popular programs like American Experience, American Masters, Antiques Roadshow, Nature, NOVA, and Masterpiece. The library also has many other popular public television programs, including Earth a New Wild, Austin City Limits, and films from Ken Burns. Local stations give the Passport benefit to their supporters. Each station can set their own qualifications for Passport. Most stations give the benefit to members who donate at least $60 a year or $5 a month. For the most up-to-date info, contact your local station or visit their website.
To get the Passport membership benefit, contact your local station.
Is PBS Passport streaming free?
PBS Passport. PBS Passport is a membership benefit for supporters of local PBS stations. Each station sets its own donation requirement for PBS Passport. For the best information, please reach out to your station or visit their website. Most PBS stations offer PBS Passport to donors who give at least $5 per month or $60 per year. Click here for more PBS Passport info. Your personal contribution. Learn more about your contribution to public broadcasting on the Value PBS website. Amazon Prime Video Channels. Amazon offers PBS programs through the Amazon website or app. You need a subscription to Amazon to access these channels. To subscribe to Amazon and stream these channels, you must have an Amazon account and use the Amazon Prime Video website or app.
Is PBS free with Amazon Prime?
Amazon Prime Video Channels. Amazon offers PBS programs on its website and app. You need a subscription to Amazon to watch these channels. To subscribe to Amazon and stream these channels, you must have an Amazon account and use the Amazon Prime Video website or app. Amazon offers a few channels, with different subscription fees ranging from $2.99 to $5.99 per month. You need a subscription to Amazon to access these channels. To watch videos through Amazon, donors of PBS stations must subscribe to Amazon directly. This is a separate fee made directly to Amazon. You can’t watch PBS Passport videos on the PBS website or app if you subscribe to these Amazon channels.
Is marriage available on PBS passport?
Marriage unites us today. This series, now on PBS Passport, is not a happy marriage. The show feels long for only four one-hour episodes. It aims for a slow-burn portrait of a married couple. Marriage brings us together today. This series, streaming now on PBS Passport, is not a blessed arrangement. The show feels long for only four episodes. It aims for a slow-burn portrait of long-term married couple Ian and Emma. However, it is boring and there are too many long silences. I was waiting for something to happen, but it never did. The series says it’s about keeping a marriage going, but it comes off as self-important. It thinks it’s offering profound truths about relationships and human nature. The show says marriage is doing dishes, watching TV, and talking with your spouse. But this couple’s daily reality isn’t poignant. Editing would have made the show better. The audience watches Ian and Emma do boring things in silence. This shows how bored, disconnected, and lonely they are. These scenes go on too long. The conversations that do happen are also difficult. Characters talk about unimportant things to avoid discussing important things. The moments where characters speak directly are refreshing because they break up the dreary subtlety of the rest of the series. Watching marriage is hard because it’s often boring, frustrating, and depressing.
How many episodes are in the PBS series marriage?
Marriage is a 2022 British TV series starring Nicola Walker and Sean Bean as a married couple. It was created, written, and directed by Stefan Golaszewski. The four-part series opened on August 14, 2022 on BBC One. It was also available to stream on BBC iPlayer.
Cast. Sean Bean as Ian, Emma’s husband; Nicola Walker as Emma, Ian’s wife; Chantelle Alle as Jessica, Ian and Emma’s adoptive daughter; Henry Lloyd-Hughes as Jamie, Emma’s boss; Jack Holden as Adam, Jessica’s abusive boyfriend; James Bolam as Gerry, Emma’s father; Makir Ahmed as Mike, Emma’s colleague. Kath Hughes as Claire, Emma’s colleague; Ella Augustin as Maxine, an employee at the local leisure center; Hector Hewer as Kieran, an employee at the local leisure center; Shona McHugh as Emily, an employee at Jamie’s company who is on work experience; Kemal Sylvester as Paul, Emma’s brother; Miles Barrow as Mark, a restaurant employee who befriends Jessica. In September 2021, the BBC announced it had commissioned a new drama starring Walker and Bean. The BBC made it with The Forge, The Money Men, and All3Media International.
When did marriage start?
It is about 4,350 years old. Before that, most anthropologists believe, families were groups of 30 people or more, with several male leaders, multiple women, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down, society needed more stable arrangements. The first marriage ceremony was in Mesopotamia around 2350 BC. Over the next few hundred years, marriage spread to the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or religion. Subscribe to The Week. Get out of your comfort zone. Get the facts behind the news. Sign up for The Week newsletters. Get the best of The Week delivered to your inbox with our morning news briefing and weekly Good News Newsletter.
How to watch marriage on PBS season 1?
Stream, rent, or buy Season 1 of Marriage. You can stream or buy Season 1 of Marriage on Amazon Channel, Apple TV, Amazon Video, or Google Play Movies. The JustWatch Daily Streaming Charts are based on user activity in the last 24 hours. This includes clicking, adding to a watchlist, and marking as seen. This includes data from ~1.3 million movie and TV fans per day. The JustWatch Daily Streaming Charts are based on user activity over the past 24 hours. This includes clicking on a streaming offer, adding a title to a watchlist, and marking a title as seen. This includes data from ~1.3 million movie and TV fans per day.
What is the marriage program on PBS?
Marriage is a funny, moving, and revealing look at the need for togetherness and the joy of love. Ian and Emma navigate the ups and downs of a long-term relationship.
Where can I stream The Marriage?
How to watch The Marriage. You can stream The Marriage on Apple TV, Google Play Movies, and Vudu.
When can I watch marriage?
Marriage, a drama series starring Sean Bean, Nicola Walker, and James Bolam, is now streaming. Watch it on Prime Video or Apple TV on your Roku device.
Has the series marriage finished?
Sean Bean and Nicola Walker play Ian and Emma. Share this with your friends! The BBC’s new drama, Marriage, ended on Monday night. People are saying the same thing about it. The BBC’s new drama, Marriage, ended on Monday. People are saying the same things about it.
MORE: Marriage: Nicola Walker plays a grieving woman in the new drama. The series, starring Sean Bean and Nicola Walker, follows a married couple as they navigate their 27-year marriage.
📹 Marriage | Trailer – BBC
Marriage sees married couple Ian (Sean Bean) and Emma (Nicola Walker) negotiate the ups and downs of their 30-year marriageĀ …
The best advice my mom ever gave me was “dont marry for love.” It sounds cold at first. But it’s not. She was always clear. You should love the person you marry, but if you are getting married solely because you love them you’re probably in trouble. You can fall in love with anyone, it doesn’t mean it will lead to a successful marriage. You should get married because you have similar goals, parenting styles if you want children, family/household expectations, and you are in a place in life where marriage is practical (among many more reasons) AND you love someone. I am so incredibly happy in my marriage to a man I love, but who I didn’t choose to marry only because I love him. Idk it makes perfect sense to me. Am I confusing you guys?
When I got married, the lady ask to my husband and I why we were getting married… we start to list many practical motives like “taxes”, “good jobs”, “like her/his family values”, “support my dreams and ambitions” and the officer always said “what else?”, finally we get to the part were we said something like “I don’t know, love?” And that was the answer she was waiting for… after that I said “lady, if you ask us why we are getting married, we will respond with many practical and even economical reasons, but if you started with why are you two together, then we will respond with the romantic love part”… needless to say, this caused a lot of laughs
There’s a joke my father used to tell. (Simplified preamble: divorced Catholics are not allowed to remarry in the church, but confession can absolve all sins.) – A Catholic couple were having marital issues. A friend asked one. “Why don’t you get divorced?” They responded, “Divorced? Never.” Then thought to themself Murder? …Maybe.
I once read that arranged marriages are less likely to end just because of the social pressure associated with it. The partners won’t even consider separation, because the shame or social disapproval that comes with it is worse than whatever nightmare of a relationship they have. Also I personally believe love matched marriages are more likely to end because both parties will feel that if their relationship is not the best they shouldn’t be forced to be together. The freedom that comes with love matching also reflects in freedom of choosing when to end it, I think. But it could also be that people just become infatuated and get married quickly and then when they get to know each other they realize they never actually liked each other. And final thought, why does your life companion have to be your lover? I think it would be great if you could make some sort of contract with your best friend or something like that.
Wherever women have their own money and access to education, there is less need and lessened necessity for marriage, period, plain and simple; and therefore the freedom to make the decision to marry based on love is such a privilege and even whimsical in a sense, not merely a luxury. Where women will be homeless if they don’t marry or get taken in by other relatives when their parents are gone there is a stark necessity for marriage and I can image has resulted down through these few thousand years in billions of unhappy but tolerated unions just so a girl could eat every day ā¦ but I dunno.
I was once engaged to my BFF: We always enjoyed each other’s company, easily shared the ups and downs, and even cohabitated without significant issues. But we called it off because we both thought romantic love was a requirement. We’ve remained friends since. We’ve often discussed that decision, and came to regret it, but chose never to second-guess it. We did agree that, if time travel were possible, we’d both take a do-over of that decision.
Another factor that came from the Enlightenment in the 18th century was the rejection of caste systems (i.e. the hereditary division between nobility, commoners, etc.). With hereditary social status of families no longer a matter of law, it became much less important that one’s mate be from a certain social class, which was a major driver for shifting the choice from one of “marrying into this family” to one of “marrying this individual”.
There’s many forms of love and we over-simplify it into this one word. I see romantic relationships as different balances of these different types. My husband and I, for example, have always had a very high friendship and sexual compatibility, but not a very high romance/limerence factor. I think basing a life-long relationship on friendship is probably going to be more stable and less draining in the long run. š
My father married his bestfriend and they respected each other. They never screamed at each other or called each other names. Their arguments were simply conversational. They weren’t the typical PDA couple but everyone who saw them knew they loved each other. My sister and I are the products of their love. I’ve realized that I grew up in a loving home and I shouldn’t be judgemental of others who didn’t. But I will say that my father set the bar really high in finding a good man.
If I married someone out of duty to my family and not for personal happiness, I would probably also stay in that marriage out of duty (or necessity, depending on the culture) even if it made me unhappy. Alternatively, if I married for personal happiness and it went sour, I’d be more likely to get a divorce. Hence why “love” marriages have a higher divorce rate.
One truth is that people change over time. Regardless how much love and compatibility two people had in the beginning, people always change over time. Sooner or later, one person looks at the other and realizes, “That’s not the person I married.” One advantage of arranged marriages (with consent of the married) is that they started with the concept of learning to love within marriage rather than before marriage. So when realizing, “That’s not the person I married,” they need only do again what they did before…learn to love the person they’re already married to. Wise couples will realize that people always change and will work to change together in the same direction. Otherwise, all marriages are actually destined to become arranged marriages between relative strangers sooner or later, and if they are to stay together, they must learn to love within marriage.
For me, the most important thing is trust and mutual respect. In so many marriages I have seen people being married unhappily to each other, not because they don’t love them, but because they do not trust or respect their partner and/or possessive/insecure. Falling in love is easy, but maintaing that companionship through life, takes a whole lot more than love.
I’m Chinese born in America, and I was always told that marriage for love was an extremely rare thing until roughly the 60s and 70s and even then many marriages were arranged. I find it interesting that this article alludes to the fact that marriage for love may still not be a first consideration in Eastern countries. It makes me feel my maternal grandparents were possibly progressive. Although my parents were arranged, I was told my maternal grandpa had the luxury to choose his matches. Something in between an arranged and personal preference. He chose my grandma who was a poor farmer girl over a rich girl who had status and wealth. So it was presumed this was a marriage for love.
I believe that TRUE LOVE should be the reason to marry. And I mean true love not passion. When you truly love your partner you want the best for them, so that will motivate you to become the best person that you can be for the one you love and you will work harder. Your partner will feel the same and do the same for you and in the end all desires, comforts and goals will be acquired together because they both care. In TRUE LOVE there is also mutual respect and more communication. There is an openness to work things out during difficult times and grow as a person together. You become a team.
i come from a south asian background and was born and raised in australia, almost everyone in my parents generation had arranged marriages but now that my older family friends are starting to get married there’s many more love marriages. of course with our parents still being against dating for the most part, some of my older family friends have actually pretended as if they hadn’t been dating for 8 years before deciding to get married- then everyone’s happy haha
So, I define “love” as a commitment to do good to someone else, or sacrifice yourself for the good of someone else. It’s an action, choice, and commitment. Modern people seem to define it more as an emotion, yet emotions are often fleeting and unreliable. Frankly, older generations and other cultures have some sense in arranged marriages and having more family involvement. That provides far more accountability to others and less likelihood of the couple merely being “blind with love.” The question should not be on whether the two are “in love,” but on whether their union is a good thing. Are they united in common worldviews, plans for the future, etc. As a servant of Christ, I know I want to marry someone who would shares the same values and commitment to serving Christ and being his example in this life. I want someone who desires to settle down and have a family of her own. Sure, it’s also important to get along and have some common interests. You should probably like the person. But, shared commitment and values are far more important than mere feelings.
I think arranged marriages work mostly because of the hopelessness of women. In rich arab GCC countries. Arranged marriages are still common yet the divorce rates are high. I think its mostly because women now have more freedom to reject their husband since they can be financially independent. If a housewife was to be divorced she’s most likely going back to her family and had to be reliant on them, unlike working women, also governments give many subsidies for divorced women and oblige the Ex-husband to keep spending on her if she has his children, mostly like child support. This is why modern marriages have high divorce rates not only love marriages.
Love became the prime cause for marriages when; there was finally too many different lifestyles to choose from? In that the lifestyles effected the average etiquette, the morality, & personalities of those within their reach/ borders? With one religion, one set of rules, one culture, one set of habits; this would produce a population full of very similar like minded people, who cared about, thought about, & work towards the same things, in the same way. Emotions didn’t need to play a part, therefore love wasn’t necessary for marriages. Wasn’t until times of peace, where people no longer saw survival as important as their personal happiness & could safely move away; comfort became to take priority over survival.
My parents had both consented to their arranged marriage but they can’t stand each other now. I mean, they never loved each other in the first place but it’s gotten so bad now that I’ll be glad to see them divorced and happy. The only reason they’re not divorced yet is because they’re waiting for my little sister to go off to college. Seeing them made me dislike the idea of marriage and children- but if I ever do end up changing my mind, I’ll need years of experience to be sure.
You should have read some historians’ great academic work on the topic. D’Emilio and Drucker suggest that marriage for love is a modernist invention, people could finally search for higher ideals like love when they wouldn’t worry about manual labor anymore as they migrated to cities, leaving their villages and farms behind where arranged marriages for wealth and a large number of children were required for manual labor.
In principle, there should be nothing wrong with parents trying to find a suitable mate for their kids except for the fact that parents have children for selfish reasons like emotional support, social expectations for women to have children, and investment in family wealth. Having kids should be about non of those things but often are. There is nothing wrong with society having things to celebrate, people wanting to invest in deals or needing emotional support, but this kind of parenting that is rooted in those things will end up treating humans like they are emotional support animals they get to breed, status symbols they can flaunt, or employees they get to boss around. It dehumanizes children/offspring to only having worth because their parents love them or can use them, it is the source of sexism, ableism, and homophobia. Disabled children have less usefulness to their parents, gay children can’t be used as status symbols or used as domesticated pets for breeding, girls are seen as emotional support animals used for breeding, that’s their default setting. Maybee think of parenting as not being about you, it’s okay if you’re taken for granted sometimes or dehumanized as just a parent figure, you can handle it. They don’t need to see you as human until their teenagers when they become analytical and need more personal and complicated advice. You’re mature, you know you’re human, the point is, their brains aren’t developed enough to understand that you’re the reason for their existence.
What do I think? Does noteing the consistency in marriage and requirements for marriage trends differntiate marriage occuring? Concerns for marriage increasing, decreasing; reasoning for marriage being romantic involvements place differentiations upon people deciding to become married? Declining marriage rates? No? Yes? Does drawing people’s attention toward marriage cause them to fixate upon marriage?
I am far from an expert in the history of marriage, but I did major in history in undergrad and do read a lot of history and what I feel like this article didn’t address enough is class differences. For example if you are in England in 1550, you individual preference for a partner will likely weigh into who you marry more if you a villager rather than if you are noble or in the gentry where financial considerations would play a bigger role. In village life, your family or even the village as a whole may have a veto of who you marry (if they don’t think the husband can support a family based on his personality and situation–the village could veto it because it was the rest of the close knit village of say 300 people that would have to pay to raise the children if the husband failed to provide)–but within acceptable boundaries, I think people picked their partners largely based on individual preference (preference might not be the exact same thing as love though–for example there was no dating so it would have been harder to fall in love, but that doesn’t mean people didn’t have preferences). But my point, is things like class played a big role in how marriages were set up and perhaps this was one of the few situations where not being in the upper classes gave you a little bit of an advantage (because individual preference was a bigger factor in the non-aristocracy)
well, love is a set of emotions, and emotions change, so it is no surprise that marriages based on love are more likely to end. Some people just seem inclined to form lasting relationships than others, in some cases becoming a superorganism, in others, one becoming a parasite attached to the other. In the case of superorganism relationships, when one died, the other will often die within a few months. I think that the concept of romantic love started to enter the western world during the Crusades due to contact with Islamic culture, where it was common. In those days, war kept people apart for long periods of time, and that gave people plenty of time to pine over somebody who was not available, which was the ideal at the time, and often, in addition, that person was married so doubly unavailable, though sometimes infrequent adultery did happen, due to husbands being away at war for long periods of time, too.
In Africa love, family, religion and practicality are the basis of marriage love alone does not keep a home is the saying. Well at least in my family, that is, least I put our whole continent into one generalised box. Some tribes still use match makers and teen marriages (not that I agree with that).
Seems as if the whole premise of this segment was based on one person’s “research” based on their writing? Many people who had nothing married, since the beginning of time, to procreate, based on attraction, companionship, and other reasons which intertwine with love, if not love has the primary. Surely you can do a simple contract if you just wanted a pure business relationship in these overwhelming majority of circumstances.
People made it about love…it used to be arranged. It’s mostly not about love now, but the confusion of love with lust. Love is something that grows out of familiarity. Mostly when people marry it’s not love, they just think it is. That’s why people are so quickly and often divorced. The first marriage was not about love, God joined them together. Come grow old with me, the best is yet to be….love is not at first sight, that’s lust at first sight, love is a growing thing. As my father said to my mom before or just shortly after they were married, YOU DON’T LOVE ME NOW, BUT YOU WILL. She did 💕, and it lasted until death did them apart.
Marriage was always about love even historically. But there are many people that married because of status, political and family purposes. Some people were forced to marry other people because of those purpose that I mentioned; this mostly happened to the higher class or more wealthy people. I’m even applying this to western nations.
I once read the common folk, initially, went to rival communities in the dead of night. They’d steal a woman, they waited a week or two before they married (engagement). If she was not stolen back, she’d marry her abductor. The ring was for possession purposes. If she had a ring, it was passed time to steal the woman back.
You make a very smart point by saying that marriage for love is not necessarily perfection and arranged marriage is pure evil, like our western ethnocentric attitude might lead us to believe. I have a male friend from Bangladesh who, after a couple significant relationships based on love that couldn’t result in marriage because one or the other family didn’t agree, in the end consented to an arranged marriage with a girl who had consented too (this included having refused several suitors before accepting my friend). They got married in their mid 20s and they are happy, they truly are. He would have told me if he wasn’t, in fact I would have probably been pretty much the only person he would have felt free to discuss this with. In western societies, we tend to confuse love with passion, or even with an idealized idea of sexual attraction, and to believe that when the passion of discovery and novelty has gone, when we know “everything” about the other person and routine steps in, then love ends. I am a therapist and I am in a happy love based marriage: from this perspective I can say that sharing values and beliefs over the main topics of life, agreeing upon wanting or not wanting children, sharing similar lifestyles and being open to integrate elements from the partner’s lifestyle into yours are crucial to a happy marriage more than the amount of “passion” you feel when you get engaged.
my family are asian immigrants and my grandma was always bickering with my grandpa. They never kissed or hugged or acted romantic, yet they lasted til death. My grandfather bought my grandma for loads of cash. My parents are the same ethnic group and my dad dated her for 2 weeks before getting married (not legally, my ppl never do it by law– they just do a wedding and then quite literally sell the bride off for thousands of dollars). My mom was 17 and he was 24. They were always arguing but my mom stayed for 28 years til he died from his brain tumor.
I’ve heard this from other sources too, but I have a hard time buying into it. I just can’t believe that before the 1700’s that “all” marriages were arranged. What about the poor? Am I suppose to believe that if a slave wanted to marry another slave that their master or their family pre-arranged that? And a poor woman might marry a wealthy man, but why would a wealthy man marry a poor woman? What about poor men? Arranged marriages are suppose to be for the sake of joining fortunes, but if you don’t have anything you don’t get married? I find that hard to believe. In the Bible (Genesis) it says that Issac loved Rebecca, and that Jacob loved Rachel and married them for that reason. Paul told the New Testament Christian men to love their wives as themselves. So I just have difficulties believing that all marriages were arranged pre- 1700’s.
Its true, in Pakistan there is almost always arranged marriges. Dont get me wrong there are love marriges, two of my own paternal uncles had love marriges. And my mom’s siblings had arranged marriges but they found love in them, sadly my parents marrige never found love. Us kids have suffered alot due to that and just my imagination thinking ill have a love marrige.
The reason arranged marriages last longer than marriages that existed based on passion is because marriage was originally created for gains and built around one’s partner being chosen for them. If you’re crazy in love with someone and then decide marriage is how you want to seal it? I say you’re confused.
Capitalism did this. Before, like it or not, people were only dependant on their families. There was no having a job and making money yourself. Most lived on family farms. So it was to be expected that almost everyone would be arranged to be married to start their own family. The families picked for you, and it was basically just a deal that kept the world going round and the cycle continuing. A husband and wife loving eachother wasnt even expected most of the time and not seen as nessecary for that reason. Im saying capitlaism made people more independent or at least able to be. And thats a good thing. We men are biologically engineered to leave our families at a young age and battle and compete with other males to win as many women as possible. We’re ironically closer to the natural state than ever before since cavemen.
Seems to cover only straight marriage, which isn’t a personal concern of mine. Families don’t normally get involved in gay marriage, it’s usually up to the couple and IMHO generally involves some prior sex and cohabitation. I have no reason to suppose that gay folk choose their partners for the same reasons as st8 couples. The recorded history is quite recent. Lots of gay couples spend a life time together, married or not.
I’ve just watched the series and I genuinely found it fascinating. Lots so long pauses and the realisation that there is so much we don’t say in life and the things we don’t address and hold back on. It’s about the boring and mundane. Really impactful and insightful. For anyone who might find it tough to follow purely for its format and not the storyline, please persist, you will be pleasantly surprised.
I think the guy who wrote this series is good. He’s very perceptive. The 2 main characters were well played by the seasoned Sean and Nicola. Yes, it was mundane, but that is what long term partnerships are like. You know each other inside and out. There are many people who would give their gold teeth to have such a partnership. Look at the old grandad in this drama, James Bolam, he was obviously very lonely living on his own. Would you like this as an alterative life? It showed a genuine loving couple who loved their adopted daughter deeply. They found it hard to be open about their grief, loss, fears and insecurities. But when push came to shove they had each other’s love and each other’s backs.
Instead of being entertained this is something to experience. It’s not an easy watch but it’s rewarding as an emotional experience. It’s wonderfully acted and very well directed. This pushes the boundaries of tv and everyone who was involved should be congratulated. ‘Awards await’ is my prediction. It’s not for everyone but then again most people aren’t used to perusal something this honest. It’s not all uncomfortable there a lot of warmth and in some parts are very endearing. Highly recommend but I don’t know to whom. Give it a go but don’t expect to watch what you’ve seen before. Takes ‘Mum’ to another level.
..I watched this show because of Nicola Walker. I watched all kinds of films, and this show had a slow-paced kind of vibe (I don’t want to use the word “realistic” because the word itself has a negative impact…. people use that word too often when they can’t find a legitimate reason to hate a film). At first, I was like 😬 because I wasn’t used to perusal a film like this but as the show progressed, it’s not that bad. I liked it. Kind of remind me of that movie that I watched, (forgot the name of the movie), the one with Zendaya was arguing with her husband? boyfriend? I don’t remember. I think the movie was black and white. Yeah, that’s the only film that I can compare it to, for now. Everyone did an amazing job.
This was extremely difficult to watch!!! Talk about ‘sheep’ as humans. Totally depressingly boring to the point of a headache being more entertaining. These actors must have found following this script HARD. I am on episode 3 and if this husband doesn’t have a psychotic break and murder someone by the end then the chronic anxiety provoking dialogue was pointless. I’ve been in a long term unmarried relationship for 28 years and if this is how marriage is thank god we never bothered! Boundaries, autonomy, authenticity and open communication. All Totally lacking. This portrayal of married life is an example of what NOT to be like. And what NOT to teach your kids to create.
I love love Sean Beam loved him on GOT And Snowpiercer im still Pissed About What Tnt Did To Snow piercer, I still close my eyes when his Charater on Got gets his head chopped off ugh, Sean Beam a fantastic actor Ned Jon Arya n tormond my fav on got N Jason momoa This new show looks good n im american
Cannot agree with some here about this drama. It is one of the worst i have seen and that is saying something when it comes to BBC drama. It maybe about the boredom of some marriages but that is the point i am making!…nothing has happened apart from pointless chat. And the music at the start and end is absolutely irritating. Well done to the BBC for infuriating me even more as to why i need to pay for the TV licence.! The BBC has no real quality any more except from maybe wildlife related broadcasts.
Ive just watched this and then I read reviews; erm, I found it brilliant. It IS slow, but that is just it, it shows how mundane life is. It also shows how full of love life can be if we stopped being so neurotic! It shows how bleeding nasty people can be. I thought it was a work of art. Beautiful and ugly.