Really enjoyed this but wondering if they would make more. Was hoping to get to learn a little more about my ancestor but they stopped right before starting on Salem 😞
I would love to see more about all of it. I've always been fascinated by the subject even before I found out about Bridget ...
8 Reviews
Beautifully Presented
Cynical_Moi8 November 2021
My, that's casting for you, a gorgeous modern young female presenter talking about the fate of female witches in bygone times! So, so far a pretty good sell, and that's even if I wasn't hooked by the theme of witch hunts in the first place - which I am, having experienced the modern form of it plus being a lover of history. Seriously, Suzannah Lipscomb does have a distinctly seductive air, above and beyond being merely beautiful, does she not? It's in the eyes, in her intelligence, and in her eloquence; 400 years ago she would quite probably have been singled out as a witch herself, and it's no coincidence she has got this slot. It makes for a curiously mesmeric watch, but what of the actual content if we can separate that out?
We can, and it's actually pretty good. It's brought to life rather than cheapened by the dramatizations and costumes. Whilst being palatable to the average viewer - and not simply because of the fronting eye candy - it satisfies on an intellectual level. For this, respect to Suzannah. She can't help the way she looks, but all she can do is try to convince of her credentials by what she says. She does not dumb down, but she appeals to us on an empathetic level in inviting us to imagine 'what it was like to undergo those tortures when completely innocent' and to be accused on a whim by spiteful mobs. She also makes some key observations and interpretations, such as the impact of King James's book, the influence of the civil war, and the possibility of sexual resentment being the motivator for the accusation of Gillis Duncan. All in all, she does a good job of evoking the tapestry of hysteria, skepticism, intellectual and spiritual judgement afoot in the 17th century psyche. This - getting a handle on the people of the past - is surely what history is all about.
I'd like to see more of. Suzannah Lipscomb.
We can, and it's actually pretty good. It's brought to life rather than cheapened by the dramatizations and costumes. Whilst being palatable to the average viewer - and not simply because of the fronting eye candy - it satisfies on an intellectual level. For this, respect to Suzannah. She can't help the way she looks, but all she can do is try to convince of her credentials by what she says. She does not dumb down, but she appeals to us on an empathetic level in inviting us to imagine 'what it was like to undergo those tortures when completely innocent' and to be accused on a whim by spiteful mobs. She also makes some key observations and interpretations, such as the impact of King James's book, the influence of the civil war, and the possibility of sexual resentment being the motivator for the accusation of Gillis Duncan. All in all, she does a good job of evoking the tapestry of hysteria, skepticism, intellectual and spiritual judgement afoot in the 17th century psyche. This - getting a handle on the people of the past - is surely what history is all about.
I'd like to see more of. Suzannah Lipscomb.
Defence of Lipscomb
butwellr30 January 2017
I would be curious to know if other reviewers have actually read any of Dr Lipscomb's academic publications? Her integrity as a historian is beyond reproach, her use of documentary evidence and development of sound arguments comply with the practices of legitimate history scholars. It should be remembered that history on television is targeted at a non-academic, and therefore more general audience. It is not possible to gauge an academic's credibility, and therefore the relevance of a body of work without considering the audience for which it is intended. It is common practice for credible historians to simplify complex and convoluted arguments in order to make history more accessible to the non-academic audience, this is what Lipscomb appears to have done in Which Hunt:A Century of Murder. By focusing on the stories of individuals she has tried to bring complex historical events alive to an audience that may not have any previous knowledge of the period, making history more accessible by making it personal.
Surprisingly Good
Hillius8 September 2016
As a lover of history and being something of a documentary person I am glad I took a chance to view this title. This two-part series concerns witch hunting in the UK during the 1500-1600's and details cause, effect and consequence stretching from monarchs to America. Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb narrates and does so excellently by being very knowledgeable about the subject matter presented and takes you on a ride through history by being on site where the events happened and by examining original documents and texts. One can tell that Dr. Lipscomb is passionate about history and the she also cares about the subject matter presented. It is not overly graphic, suitable in my view to PG-13/14 rating, would be of great use in a classroom to accompany a study about Salem or is just fine viewing of an event that I never until now realized had ever happened. My vote is 9/10!
Fantastic history show
darkdementress20 September 2020
I love learning about history! I like the hostess and that they got actors and actresses to play out the historical events makes this really come to life. I absolutely love TV shows like this but its truly brutal and horrible the things that people had to endure because they were thought to be witches. All because of religion.. Woman definitely got the worst of it. Also extremely strange how some would accuse other people. Like they thought it was a celebrity status and would make them popular or something. This show does helps debunk all the sexist,ridiculous myths that the only witches are/were women and only women are/were evil. Guess what, men were accused and convicted too! Such a ridiculous and offensive stereotype.
Sad & True 17 Century British Documentary...
monitorx12 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Initially, Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb is a true strong woman, for going in-depth concerning the investigation's of these lively innocent British people that were tortured by evil male activist worshiper's. They're not what I would call the, right winged men, yet the, left winged monster's that corrupted our entire planet with this Satanist nonsense. Of course this all lead to more evil male activist movement's into the America's of the Salem Witch Trail's of innocent people targeted too.
Moreover, when I was a child I knew there was such a thing of evil male activist, I just couldn't find all the proof in books, until I saw this 100% true Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb documentary. I had also investigated other books and documentaries as I grew older and the college her-story books opened my eye's to more greedy men or corrupted men that lived and died ages ago. Along with experience's in life, I've learned they can be evil which reflects on this documentary like puzzles of over four hundred year's ago.
Last of all, I did not like when the priest was put to death, for crimes of witchery. He was praying to his "Go Dick (Go) (d) (God) strategy. What these unspeakable monster's of men activist did was: manipulate, sexual harass, bully, harass, embarrass, torture, murder, mutilate, their victim's. So sickening! These people were nothing of "alien biography," they were mostly poor people that were bombarded with blackmail and evil male corruption which was intended as a symbol of male evil popularity. O' fear the evil men! Not! So they victimized these people, so they could get wealthy off of hundreds and thousands of lives by selling their organ's. We all saw the bank account's of that evil Mathew Hopkins (fake witch hunter) that died of sudden tuberculosis later on. It's funny how fate found him. He collected these people as if they were mere slave's in crime's of witchery, library specifications listed in the 17th century books were marked, if she had any imperfections like a: mole, a handicap, or a disability, or she was just a poor old widow. -And so that he wouldn't get caught and hung or burnt to the stake with corruption, he would then target men and children. Evil scholar of a monster!
Moreover, when I was a child I knew there was such a thing of evil male activist, I just couldn't find all the proof in books, until I saw this 100% true Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb documentary. I had also investigated other books and documentaries as I grew older and the college her-story books opened my eye's to more greedy men or corrupted men that lived and died ages ago. Along with experience's in life, I've learned they can be evil which reflects on this documentary like puzzles of over four hundred year's ago.
Last of all, I did not like when the priest was put to death, for crimes of witchery. He was praying to his "Go Dick (Go) (d) (God) strategy. What these unspeakable monster's of men activist did was: manipulate, sexual harass, bully, harass, embarrass, torture, murder, mutilate, their victim's. So sickening! These people were nothing of "alien biography," they were mostly poor people that were bombarded with blackmail and evil male corruption which was intended as a symbol of male evil popularity. O' fear the evil men! Not! So they victimized these people, so they could get wealthy off of hundreds and thousands of lives by selling their organ's. We all saw the bank account's of that evil Mathew Hopkins (fake witch hunter) that died of sudden tuberculosis later on. It's funny how fate found him. He collected these people as if they were mere slave's in crime's of witchery, library specifications listed in the 17th century books were marked, if she had any imperfections like a: mole, a handicap, or a disability, or she was just a poor old widow. -And so that he wouldn't get caught and hung or burnt to the stake with corruption, he would then target men and children. Evil scholar of a monster!
A Poor Documentary by a Poor Historian...Wikipedia is More Credible
hyperiontitanj22 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The actual facts and history behind this documentary are unfortunately polluted by Lipscomb's unsubstantiated opinions and inconsistent interpretations. Rather than present an objective, or at least, supported view of the events, Lipscomb relies on her imagination treating "history" as "historical fan-fiction."
For example, Lipscomb would have you believe the entire series of events was initiated by one man's deranged sexual proclivities."I don't think Seaton's actions had much to do with witch hunting," she says. "I think his motives were sexual." She continues, "perhaps he lusted after her for a long time and felt that, as master, he had a right to have her." She then argues, "it doesn't take a huge leap" to believe he had an "obsession" with her. Yet, no evidence exists to support this interpretation. What about the dozens of women AND men who were tortured in similar fashion by Courts and Kings over the following years? Were their actions sexual, too, or just this one man's and why?
To think, less than a year before this aired, Lipscomb published an article promoting a "rigorous code of professional practice" for historians.
The first rule? "Use evidence to support your interpretation." Other gems include, "Do not allow assertions to move from 'possibly' to 'probably'" and "Do not build more elaborate layers of interpretation on a foundation that is rocky." She also admonishes historians from giving credence to unsubstantiated claims and not to promote ideas without first considering the evidence against them (or lack of evidence for them).
Truly embarrassing. With regard to her credibility as a historian, Lipscomb's work in this documentary is on par with "Ancient Aliens."
If you would like to learn about the topic, Wikipedia, of all things, provides a more objective view. Or you are welcome to read many of the fine books on the subject.
For example, Lipscomb would have you believe the entire series of events was initiated by one man's deranged sexual proclivities."I don't think Seaton's actions had much to do with witch hunting," she says. "I think his motives were sexual." She continues, "perhaps he lusted after her for a long time and felt that, as master, he had a right to have her." She then argues, "it doesn't take a huge leap" to believe he had an "obsession" with her. Yet, no evidence exists to support this interpretation. What about the dozens of women AND men who were tortured in similar fashion by Courts and Kings over the following years? Were their actions sexual, too, or just this one man's and why?
To think, less than a year before this aired, Lipscomb published an article promoting a "rigorous code of professional practice" for historians.
The first rule? "Use evidence to support your interpretation." Other gems include, "Do not allow assertions to move from 'possibly' to 'probably'" and "Do not build more elaborate layers of interpretation on a foundation that is rocky." She also admonishes historians from giving credence to unsubstantiated claims and not to promote ideas without first considering the evidence against them (or lack of evidence for them).
Truly embarrassing. With regard to her credibility as a historian, Lipscomb's work in this documentary is on par with "Ancient Aliens."
If you would like to learn about the topic, Wikipedia, of all things, provides a more objective view. Or you are welcome to read many of the fine books on the subject.
Solid documentary with no clear objective
Calicodreamin18 July 2019
Documentary focuses on witchcraft in 1600s Scotland and England. Detailing the rise of king James and how he effectively started the idea of witchcraft and witch-hunting in both Scotland and then England. The narrator does a good job of picking out significant moments in history, specifically the cataclysms that begin each wave of accusations. definitely a gap in history between the first and second episodes, they don't flow seamlessly. The documentary picks an interesting topic but doesn't really focus on one event in particular which leaves it somewhat without a clear objective or takeaway.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
