A Woman of Substance is an entertaining, typically British mini series, which tells the story of a young woman empowering herself through hard work and hatred against a high class family that have always been indifferent and bossy to her and her poor relatives. She rapidly grows into a powerful business woman who ruins the hated family to the very last crumb.A biography must always find a fine line: how 'old' can the actors grow and when to substitute characters with new players? They've done a marvelous job with 'Blackie' Neeson; he really looks like an old man at the end of the series, although his mannerisms completely oppose his former, playful self. And it must be added: gluing a beard and silvering his hair makes the job a lot easier.Miss Seagrove didn't make it into old age, she got replaced by (a first-rate) Deborah Kerr. In the main story Emmy ages some 40 years, but in her fifties she still looks like the teenage lass from the beginning of the story. Here, old-fashioned haircuts and clothes don't help; Seagrove just has too youthful a face The acting is of a reasonable level. Seagrove does a fine job, with the exception of some cheesy moments and the instances where she talks to her young children - as if she doesn't know how to talk to kids. Although this could also have been the director's fault. All in all, Seagrove is believable in her role, and she has one of the sweetest smiles I've ever seen...The other dozen or so actors are okay but forgettable, except for two of them: Blackie, the happy-go-lucky everybody's friend and Gerald Fairley, Mr. Evil Impersonated; overacting has never been so effective!

I've just watched this unmitigated load of rubbish. It was simply painful!It saddens me to see good actors will seemingly do "anything" for money. I'm a miniseries junkie, a period drama addict and a soft touch for sagas-but this effort made me sigh with relief as the final credits rolled. The story is hardly original.The ascent of an underprivileged lass with more than her share of determination, seems to be a popular theme with writers.Em's mercurial rise in the world of commerce certainly left the likes of "The Duchess of Duke St" in the shade! I think W of S makes Cookson's stuff look excellent-yet I know it isn't:-)Trevor

Spoilers herein.Most people don't need much to justify their time in front of a screen. For them, this has two elements as an excuse: pretty good and convincing sets (except the war) and the remarkable face of Jenny Seagrove. Jenny isn't quite up to making her role believable in the large: what with sexual problems, revenge, passion-then-problems, incest, final emptiness. But she is fine in the small, especially at the beginning few hours where she isn?t a wasted human being, and someone we root for.Her face is very appealing, in fact is precisely half way between Nichole Kidman and Liv Tyler. I found two things remarkable here: the first is that most women (and there are many) have red hair or are often lit so that their hair is red. I think this is not an accident, and only part can be explained by familial relationships.The other wonder full thing is: why do we have this new genre of generational scope? I know whey we have the "mini-series" -- because it is a balance of costs, rewards and the attention span of viewers. But in the past, Austen?s time -- we would have focused on one set of characters and had room for development, not three generations and no room at all.The reason is the power of genre. Genre is a shorthand that allows the writer to assume with confidence that the viewer will assume certain things. Austen's Britain was a rigid class society, and every reader could be assumed to know and bring to the story elements that would otherwise have taken dozens of volumes to prepare. American audiences, the target of this project and the book, have no such benefit. As this is Pseudo-Austen (or more precisely pseudo-Bronte), it still has to have the superficial trappings: set in England, involve class struggle. But it has to invent the context pretty much from scratch, so we have to wade through all the stuff that Bronte's audience would know: the privilege, the sneering at servants, the sexual and economicexploitation and on and on. We have to SEE a father sacrifice his life for a Fairley. We have to SEE a Fairley attempt a rape. We have to SEE a Fairley brutalizing workers... and on and on.The problem is that we have to do so much work as viewers to advance the story. Too much. And by the end, the writers haven?t worked as hard. There is a crisis of sorts, and a resolution of sorts, but it is not related to all the work we have done.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

Having first seen this mini series when it originally aired I purchased my own copy and watch it over and over. Obviously, I like it very much, however there are flaws that I find increasingly irritating. Just before the severe thunderstorm and downpour of rain in Part I they show a perfectly cloudless blue sky. The "Hollywood Rain" that follows is so phony looking it's embarrassing. Edwina's voice dubbing (as a child) sounds awful. Barry Bostwick was a "sore thumb" miscast in the role of Paul McGill. Concerning Emma's children: The viewer is "pulling" for Emma throughout the saga, wronged by the Fairlys, working hard for a better life but how can the viewer take joy or feel supportive of her "actions" at that last "family meeting" at her Yorkshire house? Those children turned out the way they did for a reason. It's called neglect and emotional abuse and it WILL do that to a person. In this case 4 people! At that point in the story I felt sympathy for them not support for Emma. Daisy's daughter Paula was clearly Emma's favorite, but what of Daisy herself ? It was odd that she was not more prominent. The most annoying thing to me was the very last scene. Back in Yorkshire, just moments after having "rocked the world" of those select family members she and Blackie are outside reviewing the years as she sums up her life in an "unaffected" nonchalant manor. How can she appear "unaffected" after what has just occurred ? The last line was so contrived; she actually tells the viewer the "motive" of the story. The viewer doesn't want to be TOLD what the "motive" is. If it's well written we'll figure it out. The ending of a story is all important !!! They blew this one.