The Trial of Christine Keeler

[unique1986]

BBC drama starts 29th December 9pm

Yeah I know I'm early with this thread, but I can't wait.
I know nothing about this other than the brief articles I've read but it just looks like my kind of drama.

Yes part of the problem is that the Christine character is very annoying. I get that she was a victim to a large extent but that doesn't mean she's an interesting character. That's part of the problem with this production - none of the characters are likable or even that interesting (which no doubt is accurate) and the plot itself isn't as intriguing as the producers seem to think. Hence the reason it's dragging.

I think the scene where Stephen gave Christine the £5 back shows that they shared their resources. The girls paid rent etc but it's hard to see what they have actually done wrong. Being a voyeur or having lots of sex partners isn't against the law. I suppose it was the prurience and prudish attitudes of the time that were the problem.

"I struggle to have much sympathy"

You struggle to have sympathy for a malnourished, sexually abused young girl who tried to perform a DIY abortion on herself with a pen? Who went on to be used and discarded by one of the most powerful men in government, was called a tart by our prime minister, was beaten black and blue by her stalker, who served time in prison, who was later forced out of her humble job as a dinner lady just for being her and ultimately ended up penniless in a high rise council flat?

Times really haven't changed have they?

I loved tonight’s episode!

At this point, I just have it on in the background while doing other things. The pace is so slow and I'm bored with Christine's one facial expression.

I think CK was an immature and weak person who made a series of terrible decisions. Stephen Ward wasn't really hurting anyone and got hung out to dry by the establishment: It's a horrible story about the elite protecting themselves.
I think James Norton has done a very good job in this role. John Hurt made him seem a bit creepy but JN portrays him as a charming man who got out of his depth.

The problem is that Stephen Ward was much older than James Norton so even then it stood out as a bit creepy.

JN portrays him as a charming man who got out of his depth.

A 'charming man' who slept with teenage girls and pimped them out to his rich 'friends'? Even if he didn't directly profit in monetary terms, this was his way of ingratiating himself with high society.

While I agree he was used as a scapegoat by the elite, he was a sleazy character.

@IcedPurple fair point

I haven't watched tonight's episode.

I find the Christine who is depicted really annoying. Maybe the actress is really good at portraying a young, naive, selfish girl. She created so much drama!

I thought it was a strong episode tonight and it's a shame it didn't pick up pace sooner.

I think it's easier to feel sorry for Stephen Ward when he is being portrayed as he is by James Norton, but I don't doubt that he was a sleaze in real life. Even so, he was the scapegoat left to the lions while the elite sat pretty.

IcedPurple, If he didn't benefit monetarily then he wasn't pimping them. Rather sleazy behaviour, yes, esp given that he was in his late 40s at the time (older than portrayed here) and that the women were so young. But putting him on trial as a pimp, this was all about the Establishment wanting to shut him up (because he might spill the beans about all sorts of stuff THEY had been up to). They drove a person to his death and that is shameful.

IcedPurple, If he didn't benefit monetarily then he wasn't pimping them

He didn't benefit monetarily in the sense that money didn't change hands - at least I don't think so. But he did benefit in the sense that he got contacts in high society, patients for his medical practice and so on. Whether that is the legal definion of pimping I don't know, but it's certainly very objectionable behaviour.

They drove a person to his death and that is shameful.

I never said what happened to him was justified. I just took objection to a PP's description of him as a 'charming man'. Charming men in their late 40s don't sleep with teenagers or become known as the type of man who could find procure young women for rich politicians.

tvfeatures.bradfordzone.co.uk/2019/12/16/the-trial-of-christine-keeler-interview-with-emilia-fox-who-plays-valerie-profumo/

IcedPurple, Yes, he benefitted in the way you describe. But this is surely no different to what happens today in similar circles, people wanting influence, networking, putting this person in contact with that person? The use of quite vulnerable young women as part of that is objectionable, yes.

Part of Ward's tragedy was that he was quite socially precarious himself. In one of the episodes (forget which) there's a conversation in which it is revealed that he "only" attended a minor public school (while Lord Astor, Profumo himself, etc etc had all been to Eton, Harrow, etc.) That difference would have been very significant in that circle. Ward is a social climber, loves seeing himself as the friend of aristocrats, Cabinet ministers, etc and doesn't realize until nearly the end how superficial and basically unpleasant most of them are. Astor giving him a cheque for legal fees and then, straight after, telling him to return the keys to the cottage at Cliveden, even requesting that Ward write a letter implying that that is Ward's own choice! And then scuttling away abroad just before the trial. The men at the Athenaeum Club who, once they have heard that Astor has gone, couldn't give a shit about someone who has almost certainly been fitted up. And so on. These people were users and Ward, naively, didn't understand that.

As for "charming", that can be taken in two ways.

And let's not forget that members of the Royal Family were also caught up in this. (That scene when W. walks round the exhibition of his drawings and sees that the portraits of Princess Marina, Prince Philip and Princess Margaret have been mysteriously removed.) People who had clearly been happy to have contact with Ward when it suited them.

Also, I don't think it's been mentioned anywhere in the dialogue but it was widely understood by the Press that Prince Philip had at some time (probably in the 50s) had an ex-marital affair with Valerie Hobbs, John Profumo's wife. There was a "gentlemen's agreement" not to publish anything.

Is it just me? Stephen Ward, supplier of young women to the Establishment, driven to suicide, tragedy. Jeffrey Epstein, supplier of young women to the wealthy, driven to suicide, or murdered?, not tragedy. Double standards everywhere, nothing changes.

^^
Exactly, longwayoff , DH and I said this from Ep 1.

Nothing changes .

Longwayoff, a major difference is that Epstein was himself abusing young women; Ward was more of a voyeur (maybe not in the literal sense of actually watching but at one remove, getting a kick out of it.)

Epstein was found guilty of rapes of multiple women; Ward was accused of living off immoral earnings not because he WAS living off immoral earnings but because various powerful people wanted him silenced and out of the way for political reasons.

I don't think the people who abandoned Ward had a leg to stand on morally. A lot of them had benefitted from their association with him, had apparently seen nothing wrong with the involvement of young women and had, in several cases, had sex with them themselves ! They abandoned him because they wanted to keep up appearances, their behaviour throughout was motivated more or less solely by self-interest.

Equating all sleaze as equally heinous does no-one any favours. Also, are you saying that Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies had NO agency in any of this? They themselves never suggested that. And at no point has it been suggested that either of them were raped by any of these influential men. Mandy Rice-Davies lived with Peter Rachmann and saw herself as his lover and maybe future wife. Yes, there are huge power differentials in these relationships (and a lot of these men were dodgy in other ways too, not least Rachmann himself, an appalling character).

Longwayoff, a major difference is that Epstein was himself abusing young women; Ward was more of a voyeur (maybe not in the literal sense of actually watching but at one remove, getting a kick out of it.)

Ghislaine Maxwell then, if you prefer.

I don't think anyone here is denying that Stephen Ward was treated shabbily by the establishment. All they're saying is that he was a highly objectionable character, certainly by today's standards. Not sure why you're so desperate to defend him.

Is it just me? Stephen Ward, supplier of young women to the Establishment, driven to suicide, tragedy. Jeffrey Epstein, supplier of young women to the wealthy, driven to suicide, or murdered?, not tragedy. Double standards everywhere, nothing changes.

I agree. Just because it all took place more than 50 years ago in Swinging London and Stephen Ward is played by a handsome actor, it doesn't mean he was a 'charming man'.

I couldn't quite work Ward out until this last episode. I think he just got carried away with the 60's sexual revolution and thought it meant everyone was just happily involved in a sexual free for all and the morality of the time had changed. It was only at his trial that he realised that actually, all his friends in high places would all want to save face and pretend that they weren't involved and the morality of the time hadn't changed at all outside his little bohemian existence in Soho. He provided young girls to his friends in exchange for influence and power. In the trial, there was a part where one of the lawyers asked him about CK and MRD having sex in his flat and he just thought it was because they liked each other. None of the old men could bring themselves to say ' what would a 16 year old see in someone 50 years older than them, unless they were being given money and gifts' because they were all at it and couldn't face facts.

Norfolk, I don't agree. You say Christine and Mandy had agency and agreed their affairs. Current thought says they were too young to do so. When they met Ward they were 16. Virginia Giuffre, 18. Either it's acceptable for sleazy old men to entice young vulnerable people into 'doing favours ' for them and their friends or it isn't. The passage of 55 years between the 2 shouldn't make it hard to see.

I think he just got carried away with the 60's sexual revolution and thought it meant everyone was just happily involved in a sexual free for all and the morality of the time had changed.

The morality had not changed at this point becuase the 'sexual revolution' was still several years in the future. The period in which this took place was still really the 1950s as regards social and sexual norms. It would have been considered extremely scandalous for an unmarried woman to have sex at all, let alone with multiple partners. Which isn't to say it didn't happen, just that it wasn't talked about.

That's one of my problems with this production - it doesn't really evoke a sense of time and place, even though it's got plenty of time to do so.

Longwayoff, the age of consent for heterosexuals back then was the same as it is now: 16. There are rules now (quite rightly) about teachers, etc not having sex with pupils even if the pupils are over the age of consent, that's because it's viewed as an abuse of power.

But are you saying NO young woman over the age of 16 has any agency? That any young woman over the age of 16 who chooses to have sex with an older man (however ill-advised) has no agency? When does agency kick in?

Christine Keeler comes over as very vulnerable and she was, of course. (Sexually abused at home, had an illegal abortion, totally unsupported at home on an emotional level, etc). Mandy Rice-Davies absolutely does not come over as a victim. Yes, she was young. Yes, she had sex with older men. I don't see a victim when she gets up in court.

You are framing the whole thing in terms of older men "enticing" young girls as if that is the only possible interaction. Keeler goes to tea etc with one of these older men and repeatedly refuses to sleep with him. He pushes his luck; she tells him it's not happening. That is a young woman showing agency.

I don't think people should be charged with something they haven't done.

I don't think people in positions of power should take unfair advantage of it but it will always happen. Big fleas have lesser fleas, upon their backs to bite 'em. And lesser fleas have little fleas and so, ad infinitum. I also don't think Ward's dubious behaviour should be whitewashed through a vintage lens.