Lots of drawn out scenes going nowhere with no sub-plots to speak of.
Last week was strewn with procedural errors, and the absence of any mention of the HSE was by far the worst one in last night's episode. Gives the impression firms can be that lapse without any consequences.
Technical/legal/procedural details do not necessarily stop dramas from being dramatic.
.
Lots of drawn out scenes going nowhere with no sub-plots to speak of.
Last week was strewn with procedural errors, and the absence of any mention of the HSE was by far the worst one in last night's episode. Gives the impression firms can be that lapse without any consequences.
Technical/legal/procedural details do not necessarily stop dramas from being dramatic.
.
After the proposed cuts by the present Government to the HSE, this may become reality.
I've enjoyed the first two episodes (though the second episode also had some major flaws) but the third episode was really poor throughout in my opinion.
The point at which her husband turned up dressed as a clown was the cherry on the cake. Her self righteous speech to the jury, the jury finding her unanimously not guilty, then the loud cheer from the gallery all seemed completely at odds with reality.
I know that if I'd been in the jury I would have found her guilty ... she admitted to burning down a factory with at least one person in it for God's sake. Half the people in the public gallery appeared to be her son's work mates ... would they really be cheering someone cleared of an arson attack that quite possibly left them unemployed?
I've enjoyed the first two episodes (though the second episode also had some major flaws) but the third episode was really poor throughout in my opinion.
The point at which her husband turned up dressed as a clown was the cherry on the cake. Her self righteous speech to the jury, the jury finding her unanimously not guilty, then the loud cheer from the gallery all seemed completely at odds with reality.
I know that if I'd been in the jury I would have found her guilty ... she admitted to burning down a factory with at least one person in it for God's sake. Half the people in the public gallery appeared to be her son's work mates ... would they really be cheering someone cleared of an arson attack that quite possibly left them unemployed?
Frankly, it was just plain shit!
Was the owner in the factory when she set the fire? If he was shouldn't she had been charged with attempted murder?
Perhaps. But that doesn't mean the owner could have just carried on operating. There would at least be a delay before the insurance paid out, and that might have been fatal to a business which, from the owner's rant about Chinese and Indian workers doing it all cheaper, may have been up against it anyway.
This has passed me by (been really busy last few weeks) however my Dad texted me today and got me to check out last week's episode on Iplayer, turns out my little brother was an extra on it!!
At last a return to form for McGovern. I enjoyed all the previous Accused episodes, despite there being many unrealistic scenes in them. But tonight's story was a far more plausible drama. The acting as ever was first rate.
I thought it was ok, but unless I'm very slow tonight, I didn't really see the point ?
Perhaps there wasn't one ?..and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that there is usually some ambiguity about the character/story that makes you think, it all seemed fairly straightfoward to me. I couldn't find myself sympathising with the "accused"..were we supposed to ?
I thought it was ok, but unless I'm very slow tonight, I didn't really see the point ?
Perhaps there wasn't one ?..and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that there is usually some ambiguity about the character/story that makes you think, it all seemed fairly straightfoward to me. I couldn't find myself sympathising with the "accused"..were we supposed to ?
I thought the same about tonight's episode. The writing was less sympathetic with the accused character than before. Still, it had one of the usual JMcG 'anti-authority figure' inserts when Liam said he had done some horrendous things but would never stoop as low as 'you' [the prison officer].
I thought the same about tonight's episode. The writing was less sympathetic with the accused character than before. Still, it had one of the usual JMcG 'anti-authority figure' inserts when Liam said he had done some horrendous things but would never stoop as low as 'you' [the prison officer].
I don't think that remark was meant to be taken literally.
As I saw it, Liam knew he'd done something bad and was ashamed of himself - but was trying to pretend that he wasn't as quite as bad as all that. Hence him insulting the court prison guard.
When the verdict was read out, and when Emma confronted him at the very end, he was forced to admit that he actually was bad.
So while I understand how it could be construed as another McGovern dig at authority, I don't think it was intended like that. (But, hey, what do I know?! That's just how I saw it).
For me, this stood head and shoulders above anything else we've seen so far in this series. Less contrived and with fewer 'issues' shoe-horned into the drama, I found it a disturbing and compelling portrait of a man who hates his own life so much - and actively contributes to his own downward spiral through his gambling addiction - that he goes completely out of control.
Were we supposed to sympathise with Liam? I don't think this is a black-and-white situation and that is what made it such intelligent and mature writing. We knew he was behaving in a stupid and irresponsible way - and constantly making things worse rather than better - but we also saw why he made the choices he made, even though they were for entirely the wrong reasons. It was like watching someone car-crash their own life - and, appallingly, how easy it is to do that if you can't face up to your flaws.
The first time, IMHO, this series has really hit the mark.
I don't think that remark was meant to be taken literally.
As I saw it, Liam knew he'd done something bad and was ashamed of himself - but was trying to pretend that he wasn't as quite as bad as all that. Hence him insulting the court prison guard.
When the verdict was read out, and when Emma confronted him at the very end, he was forced to admit that he actually was bad.
So while I understand how it could be construed as another McGovern dig at authority, I don't think it was intended like that. (But, hey, what do I know?! That's just how I saw it).
For me, this stood head and shoulders above anything else we've seen so far in this series. Less contrived and with fewer 'issues' shoe-horned into the drama, I found it a disturbing and compelling portrait of a man who hates his own life so much - and actively contributes to his own downward spiral through his gambling addiction - that he goes completely out of control.
Were we supposed to sympathise with Liam? I don't think this is a black-and-white situation and that is what made it such intelligent and mature writing. We knew he was behaving in a stupid and irresponsible way - and constantly making things worse rather than better - but we also saw why he made the choices he made, even though they were for entirely the wrong reasons. It was like watching someone car-crash their own life - and, appallingly, how easy it is to do that if you can't face up to your flaws.
The first time, IMHO, this series has really hit the mark.
Spot on, IMO it was far better than the cliched antiauthoritarian rants of the previous episodes.
At first I thought this was going to be rather similar to the Christopher Eccleston episode; (family man getting into trouble to give daughter what she wants, having an affair, gambling, etc) but it went down a darker and yet more believable road. As someone who has experienced a similar stalker/fantasist it was very, very accurate and chilling. Andy Serkis brilliant as ever.
Very strange one last night. Really tried my patience for the first half - I very nearly switched over after 40 minutes. Second half, however, really came to life.
Looking back on the whole thing now, I really like the idea of a drama with so little dialogue. The main problem was that, whereas the other episodes had main characters with whom we could sympathise, at least to some extent, there was very little to sympathise with this week - at least beyond the frustrations of being married to someone with MS.
I thought it was good. Liam was a very odd character, but people like him exist. He was by far the least sympathetic of the "accused" to date; apart from his wife's MS, every one of his problems was of his own making, and his behaviour was frankly creepy. Even so, we were shown that he wasn't all bad; he didn't seem to lack affection for his daughter and he did show signs of some shame when the girl talked about how the burglary had affected her.
Nice, by the way, to see Mia Smith, one of the best things about the last series of Grange Hill, as the daughter. One of a number of good performances here; in fact, the acting all series has been fantastic.
I thought it was good. Liam was a very odd character, but people like him exist. He was by far the least sympathetic of the "accused" to date; apart from his wife's MS, every one of his problems was of his own making, and his behaviour was frankly creepy. Even so, we were shown that he wasn't all bad; he didn't seem to lack affection for his daughter and he did show signs of some shame when the girl talked about how the burglary had affected her.
Nice, by the way, to see Mia Smith, one of the best things about the last series of Grange Hill, as the daughter. One of a number of good performances here; in fact, the acting all series has been fantastic.
Yes the acting has been terrific, in fact it is good to see some well made dramas back on the box instead of the usual celeb or soap based programmes.
My favourite one this week. It kept me guessing right the way through what his crime was going to be, I was sure he was going to rape her and I'm glad I was wrong. It was all very believable unlike previous episodes and Andy Serkis was fantastic in his portrayal as I kept swaying from feeling sorry for him and hating him. Looking forward to next week.
Apart from the word 'brilliant' in front of 'drama' (I wouldn't go that far), I agree strongly with all of this. The episodes work better as dramas per se, but as I've said before, JMcG sets out with realism at the core of his writing as a self-stated agenda, and the nature of what he writes necessarily means that realism then becomes a major issue.
On the subject of polemics, I also noticed this week that the episode was co-written by Alice Nutter, who has a letter published in the new Radio Times in reply to Tim Collin's criticism of the second episode (she also wrote an episode of The Street). She was formerly a member of the anarchist group Chumbawamba.
I noticed the letter in Radio Times was by Alice Nutter of Chumbawamba. Didn't know she was a co-writer on the episode, nor did she make it clear that she was.
Still, she gets knocked down, but she'll get up again!
Comments
Lots of drawn out scenes going nowhere with no sub-plots to speak of.
Last week was strewn with procedural errors, and the absence of any mention of the HSE was by far the worst one in last night's episode. Gives the impression firms can be that lapse without any consequences.
Technical/legal/procedural details do not necessarily stop dramas from being dramatic.
.
After the proposed cuts by the present Government to the HSE, this may become reality.
The point at which her husband turned up dressed as a clown was the cherry on the cake. Her self righteous speech to the jury, the jury finding her unanimously not guilty, then the loud cheer from the gallery all seemed completely at odds with reality.
I know that if I'd been in the jury I would have found her guilty ... she admitted to burning down a factory with at least one person in it for God's sake. Half the people in the public gallery appeared to be her son's work mates ... would they really be cheering someone cleared of an arson attack that quite possibly left them unemployed?
Frankly, it was just plain shit!
Was the owner in the factory when she set the fire? If he was shouldn't she had been charged with attempted murder?
Perhaps. But that doesn't mean the owner could have just carried on operating. There would at least be a delay before the insurance paid out, and that might have been fatal to a business which, from the owner's rant about Chinese and Indian workers doing it all cheaper, may have been up against it anyway.
Yes. It's absolutely dire this week.
Yes it was probably OTT but when you consider his life with his wife of many years he needed the escapism.
Stalkers and obsessive deluded people do exist.
You're not wrong. It made no sense whatsoever.
Perhaps there wasn't one ?..and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that there is usually some ambiguity about the character/story that makes you think, it all seemed fairly straightfoward to me. I couldn't find myself sympathising with the "accused"..were we supposed to ?
I thought the same about tonight's episode. The writing was less sympathetic with the accused character than before. Still, it had one of the usual JMcG 'anti-authority figure' inserts when Liam said he had done some horrendous things but would never stoop as low as 'you' [the prison officer].
I don't think that remark was meant to be taken literally.
As I saw it, Liam knew he'd done something bad and was ashamed of himself - but was trying to pretend that he wasn't as quite as bad as all that. Hence him insulting the court prison guard.
When the verdict was read out, and when Emma confronted him at the very end, he was forced to admit that he actually was bad.
So while I understand how it could be construed as another McGovern dig at authority, I don't think it was intended like that. (But, hey, what do I know?! That's just how I saw it).
For me, this stood head and shoulders above anything else we've seen so far in this series. Less contrived and with fewer 'issues' shoe-horned into the drama, I found it a disturbing and compelling portrait of a man who hates his own life so much - and actively contributes to his own downward spiral through his gambling addiction - that he goes completely out of control.
Were we supposed to sympathise with Liam? I don't think this is a black-and-white situation and that is what made it such intelligent and mature writing. We knew he was behaving in a stupid and irresponsible way - and constantly making things worse rather than better - but we also saw why he made the choices he made, even though they were for entirely the wrong reasons. It was like watching someone car-crash their own life - and, appallingly, how easy it is to do that if you can't face up to your flaws.
The first time, IMHO, this series has really hit the mark.
Spot on, IMO it was far better than the cliched antiauthoritarian rants of the previous episodes.
Looking back on the whole thing now, I really like the idea of a drama with so little dialogue. The main problem was that, whereas the other episodes had main characters with whom we could sympathise, at least to some extent, there was very little to sympathise with this week - at least beyond the frustrations of being married to someone with MS.
Nice, by the way, to see Mia Smith, one of the best things about the last series of Grange Hill, as the daughter. One of a number of good performances here; in fact, the acting all series has been fantastic.
Yes the acting has been terrific, in fact it is good to see some well made dramas back on the box instead of the usual celeb or soap based programmes.
I noticed the letter in Radio Times was by Alice Nutter of Chumbawamba. Didn't know she was a co-writer on the episode, nor did she make it clear that she was.
Still, she gets knocked down, but she'll get up again!