Gunpowder Siege

It may be reasonably accurate as far as the timeline goes, but first and foremost despite being on 'Sky History' it's best described as factual entertainment. And entertain it does.

The little 'breaking-the-fourth-wall' exposition scenes are good for keeping the narrative on track and provide the opportunity to flesh out the story without adding in unnecessary scenes.

Yes the actors are all 'easy-on-the-eye', but for me all of the performances hit the mark without worrying about any DEI box-ticking.

If you're watching this series expecting an 'aircrash confidential-style' dry-documentary you'll be disappointed but instead, think of it as opportunity to discover more about the plot and, given the state of politics in this country, ponder 'what if?......'

OK, can we all just take a minute? I'm all for diversity and inclusion, but can we agree to keep these arbitrary quotas out of historical documentaries? It's one thing in something like Bridgerton, where the point is entertainment, but a history documentary's purpose is to inform.

Robert Catesby was, by all accounts, not a tall, handsome heartthrob. He certainly wasn't mixed race. The actor playing him is talented, and this is not a criticism of his performance, which is strong. However, this casting feels like one of the most jarring choices I've seen in a while. And this isn't an isolated case-it's cropping up everywhere. This urge to include everyone, regardless of historical accuracy, feels like a token gesture that risks going too far. It seems like it's done just to make a point.

In almost any other context, I'd agree with more inclusive casting; it's essential to include everyone in all kinds of projects. But when it comes to historical documentaries, I'm not in favor of these choices. If a documentary's goal is to educate the audience, why mislead them with casting that pulls them out of the historical world it's trying to create?

A similar example is the casting of a Black actress as Anne Boleyn a few years ago. While that was a bold choice, it was a drama series meant to entertain. But if it's a documentary on the History Channel, sticking to historical accuracy would serve everyone better. Documentary-it's in the name! I also don't see who this benefits. Artistically, it doesn't necessarily benefit the actors, and from an informational standpoint, it doesn't serve the audience either.

It's a shame because, apart from this, Gunpowder Siege tells a rarely explored part of history well. The actors do a fantastic job, and the documentary is thoughtfully structured and informative. It's just hard to stay fully engaged when the diversity quota alarm is ringing in your ears throughout.

Gunpowder siege is the story of the aftermath of the plot by English catholics to overthrow the Protestant King and Parliament.

The attempt to blow up the House of Commons fails and the plotters must flee. They still feel there is a chance to succeed in overthrowing the government and encourage rebellion, however it doesn't happen and the plotters decide to meet their end by holding out in a siege.

The main issue I have is the casting, nothing against the acting ability of the main character, in my opinion history is important to tell the story as acutely as possible including g how the characters were and importantly how they looked.

The director chose to cast a man of colour as the white English. Robert Catesby. I am not sure why this was thought to be a good idea but it completely detracts from the historical facts. I don't like white actors portraying people of colour and vice versa.

I hope this trend ends in cinema and film making.