MovieChat Forums > The Devil's Whore (2008) Discussion > I say 'No!' to John Simm's hair.

I say 'No!' to John Simm's hair.

posted 16 years ago by Potterreader35
13 replies | jump to latest

No, no and thrice no!

Alright, so it's a costume drama and I suppose some leeway should be granted. But I just think back to his glorious short back 'n' sides in "Life on Mars" and in "Doctor Who" and I can't help but shed a tear for the terrible mess of a hair disaster he's wearing in this one.

Given this drama is not supposed to be based on facts, I'd like the wardrobe department to have dressed him up as a time travelling copper from the seventies. It would have been groundbreakingly anachronistic and would have served to be the start of many happy discussions on this IMDb page, so there's two advantages. I can't think of any disadvantages.

I'm going to be putting my foot through my telly, and I'll be sending Channel 4 the bill!

Who's with me?

[–] syntinen 16 years ago

Why not?

They already had time-travelling court ladies - all the posh frocks were based on Restoration fashions of 30 years later.

[–] silverwhistle 16 years ago

If my eyes weren't deceiving me, I think Mrs Lilburne had the only properly short-waisted dress. The long waists on Angelica's dresses were definitely later 17C.

[–] neroville 16 years ago

I haven't watched the show yet, but from the clips I've seen it seems like they're only 10 years off or so on the fashions. Short-waisted gowns were going out of fashion by 1643, and you were beginning to see longer stiffened bodices and the beginning of the off the shoulder look. Aileen Ribeiro describes this shift in styles in great detail in "Fashion and Fiction"- the look that most people associate with the Restoration was actually pretty established by 1649-1650.

[–] NormaDesmond6 16 years ago

True very true.

[–] thatsnumberwang 16 years ago

I agree with Matthew-673: the scar was glaringly ridiculous. I kept wondering, how does he have a livid scar like that, but no damage to the actual eye? His character definitely calls for scars, that one was just a bit too outre. As for the hair, it's to be expected for a period piece.

http://saucybetty.blogspot.com

[–] Potterreader35 16 years ago

They were ahead of their time? They were the trendsetters? That's a very charitable way of explaining it.

[–] Matthew-673 16 years ago

His scar was worse, placed too perfectly over the middle of the eye socket.

[–] NormaDesmond6 16 years ago

Have to agree with you....too much brooding under a large hat brim,

[–] man_of_stars 16 years ago

It actually makes sense that the scar would look like that if the slice that caused it started from the forehead and went down. Eye sockets are there to protect the eye, you know, so unless he's stabbed right in the middle of the eye, the chances that his eye would have been protected by his scull are decent enough.

[–] Moss-37 16 years ago

Maybe he had a cunning glass eye popped in to cover for his damaged eye.Closer inspection is called for in next weeks episode!

[–] treebeardman 16 years ago

Im more interested in how he manages to first join the Royalists, then slip away and become a leading rebel, then slip away (again)! I suspect if anyone tried that they would be killed as a traitor.

Hmmm Haroom "Well there are Ents, and there are Ents."

[–] david1806 10 years ago

I think John Simms was totally miscast in this production. And the hair and scar were very silly indeed.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]