|
 Broadchurch got renewed for a second series, and it's starting on Monday the 5th at 9PM UTC on ITV in the UK. It should also be available via streaming on ITV's website if you can provide a valid UK postal code. BBC America will be airing it, but not until March. What is Broadchurch? It's a serialized drama revolving around how a town, Broadchurch, reacts to the murder of the young boy Danny Latimer. While the show has a roughly ensemble cast, of special note are the focal-point characters DI Alex Hardy (David Tennant) and DS Ellie Miller (Olivia Colman), who were the officers investigating the case. This is not really a crime drama in that it's not a detective show with straightforward clues and foreshadowing that you're meant to "solve" by episode 3. Instead, the crime serves as a framework for setting up character interactions and interesting situations. Kind of like Twin Peaks but without the quirkiness or surrealism. The first series was told in eight 45-minute(-ish) episodes and the second series looks to be the same length. There was an American remake called Gracepoint (which we have a thread for) that changed some plot points and wasn't quite as well received; it will not be getting a second season. The first series wrapped up the murder mystery plot, and the result was definitely significant. If you haven't seen it, I heavily recommend watching it before jumping into series 2. It's available in its entirety on Netflix. Purportedly, series 2 will not introduce a new murder or big case, instead focusing on how the town recovers from such a tragedy. Given that the focus characters are cops, we'll see how that pans out, but that's the story. I'm interested to see how they keep momentum going without that driving factor, but they've introduced enough plot threads that they can probably make it work. E: Just to clarify, spoilers are open after it airs in the UK. No need to wait for the US airing. Linear Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jan 6, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
Jsor posted:Purportedly, series 2 will not introduce a new murder or big case, instead focusing on how the town recovers from such a tragedy. Thank God, I loved the first season and really didn't see how they could possibly do a follow-up, but this sounds like the best possible way to handle it. I have high hopes for this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
Didn't realise this was airing so early on in the month. I'm very interested to see where this goes and hopefully it sticks the landing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
MILLARGHHHHH. I missed your Scottish accent, Tennant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Not sure how I felt about that episode (and open spoilers since it aired and all that). Don't get me wrong, this is still great television as far as dialogue, cinematography, and even keeping my interest. They're going into Sandbrook which is unsurprising, but they went and had Joe plead not guilty. Now, this could be interesting, but I was really hoping we'd be kind of "done" with Danny and the murder. Obviously I didn't expect the series to be utterly detached from it, but I don't think a court-mandated reinvestigation is the best way they could have gone. Still, we have a whole season to make that judgment, I'm not completely opposed to it, just disappointed they went in that direction. My only other issue is they're laying the parallels on a bit thick. Mark sneaking away from Beth to play vidya games with Tom, and Ellie and Claire. Character parallels aren't foreign to Broadchurch by any means, and I'm 100% certain they'll subvert and explore the real differences fully. They showed rather than told, nobody came out and said "oh, Claire is just like you, Ellie, because her husband was released after a bad trial from my last very similar child murder case." But it was still transparent enough that they were practically jumping up and down screaming it at you. I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt, this may end up working really well once we see more episodes, but as a first episode I thought it had a few missteps. Linear Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
The thing with Mark and Tom is clearly Mark trying to capture the feeling of having his son back and Tom enjoying hanging out with a positive male role model. I seriously doubt they're going to do anything more with it besides other people making assumptions and overreacting. It's certainly going to come out in the trial and be an issue, how I have no idea. The Claire/Ellie thing is a bit odd, and I'm wondering where they plan to go with it. pentyne fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
pentyne posted:The thing with Mark and Tom is clearly Mark trying to capture the feeling of having his son back and Tom enjoying hanging out with a positive male role model. I seriously doubt they're going to do anything more with it besides other people making assumptions and overreacting. It's certainly going to come out in the trial and be an issue, how I have no idea. Well, right, I'm almost 100% sure Mark isn't going to ragekill Tom. It was just a bit eyerolly to me to way it was framed. If anything, beside the surface similarities to Joe it more resembles the shopkeep from Series 1 who ran that scout club because he missed his son.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
I worry that I am going to get frustrated if they start producing stuff to make the outcome of the trial anything but a certainty - it would actually be much more interesting to watch how these people deal with a six-week trial in which the defendant is obviously guilty and whose conviction is inevitable but is still going to torment these people with a trial because he's ultimately a weak, flawed person. But it looks a bit like they're going to try and magic up some sort of "DI Hardy mucked up the case again" nonsense. I hope I'm wrong either way because this show is gorgeous to watch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:I worry that I am going to get frustrated if they start producing stuff to make the outcome of the trial anything but a certainty - it would actually be much more interesting to watch how these people deal with a six-week trial in which the defendant is obviously guilty and whose conviction is inevitable but is still going to torment these people with a trial because he's ultimately a weak, flawed person. But it looks a bit like they're going to try and magic up some sort of "DI Hardy mucked up the case again" nonsense. From the tone it looks like the defense has a identified a lot of procedural errors and possible illegal actions taken by the police. It's not so much "He's absolutely innocent" but "Hmm, I can blow quite a few holes in this assumed slam dunk". Hardy's past case will certainty take on major prominence as the trial moves forward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Yeah, it looks like they're playing things like the "well, DI Hardy was alone when Joe said this, how can we be sure this man is telling the truth?" angle right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Jsor posted:Yeah, it looks like they're playing things like the "well, DI Hardy was alone when Joe said this, how can we be sure this man is telling the truth?" angle right now. Yeah, that seems like the biggest issue. We've also already seen the defense team is scummy as hell with them having Danny's body dug up. The only possible reason I can think, from an actual defense standpoint and not an "we're assholes" standpoint, is that they want to make extra sure that he wasn't sexually assaulted, but the initial autopsy already covered that, so what the hell, stop being scummy defense team. Oddly enough, as much as I hate the D-team right now I like that they're at least introducing the possibility that Joe might rget away with it. I don't imagine there's any way he does, but it'll be fun (well, "Broadchurch fun") watching everyones lives go to hell because Joe's weak. I'm also glad I watched it on repeat, because it cut pretty much right from Ellie talking about the bluebelle in the envelope to the field with the Sandbrook girls in it literally swarming with bluebelle flowers. I figured it was something like that, but nice to see it back-to-back like that. I hope Ellie and Danny's mom can sort out their issues, I don't remember the mom being so mad at Ellie before, and I'm pretty sure they were friends in S1 before the big reveal. Also, they really went all in on this mysterious prosecutor. She's the best around, but swore to never try a case again after _____ and her ongoing _____ could compromise this trial too! Haha, welcome back BC. Anyway, that about sums up my thoughts on episode 1. I really hope the season ends with Joe found guilty and sentenced, Sandbrook guy caught, and Tennant shaving his beard of sorrow. Final shot should be a shaven Tennant looking at a clean bill of health while I dunno, tripping or otherwise annoying Ellie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
NowonSA posted:Yeah, that seems like the biggest issue. We've also already seen the defense team is scummy as hell with them having Danny's body dug up. The only possible reason I can think, from an actual defense standpoint and not an "we're assholes" standpoint, is that they want to make extra sure that he wasn't sexually assaulted, but the initial autopsy already covered that, so what the hell, stop being scummy defense team. Joe knows that for the trial to take place the crown and the defense will have to dig into the lives of everyone involved and out absolutely everything. He feels like what happened with Danny was an accident and he shouldn't be punished for it when so many other people in the town have secrets they don't want known. Mark will have to admit to his affairs, Hardy's past case work will get exposed, Ellie will be under insane scrutiny given her involvement and all her detective work will be poured over for even the slightest error, her sister will be dragged through the wringer, the local paper and that one reporter will get shredded for their involvement, etc. etc. Like how the shopkeeper was "outed" without any context and ruined his life (he killed himself because the attention brought back how much he missed his son) the same thing will happen to everyone else marginally related to the case. I wouldn't say the defense team is scummy. The prevailing attitude for them now seems to be that there was a lot of police irregularities and suspicious behavior, from their point of view, and given Ellie's involvement with the investigation all they need is the slightest hint that she acted in her authority as a detective to either stall or set back the search for Danny's killer. As for getting his confession thrown out, I can't think of a reason for that to work. Even if other evidence is tossed out, the confession alone will carry enormous weight so its just Joe saying "gently caress you I'm taking you all with me" Even if Joe does go free, it'll be a race between Mark and Ellie over who shoots him first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
NowonSA posted:I hope Ellie and Danny's mom can sort out their issues, I don't remember the mom being so mad at Ellie before, and I'm pretty sure they were friends in S1 before the big reveal. They were friends before the reveal, but Beth was pretty pissed at Ellie at the end of season 1. Not screaming, but a very stern "how could you not know?" In fact, based on some of the things they've said, I'd wager the very question "how could DS Miller not have known..." (and by extension "Why didn't DI Hardy notice anything when he had dinner with the defendant") will be trotted out by the defense, and may set the stage for Beth forgiving Ellie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
Jsor posted:They were friends before the reveal, but Beth was pretty pissed at Ellie at the end of season 1. Not screaming, but a very stern "how could you not know?" Beth will probably come around when she sees Ellie getting absolutely destroyed and humiliated by the defense. If this show keeps its tone for the season it's going to be brutal as gently caress. On an unrelated note, I'm actually worried about the actor playing Mark. He does an insanely good job of absolutely raging in anger but it looks like he'll pop a blood vessel every time he snaps. pentyne fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
This was so much better than I thought it could possibly be, I hope they can keep up the quality. Sure there were a lot of contrivances (the amazing QC who just so happens to live in town, knows/is related to one of the established characters from season one, is connected to the Defense attorney etc) but it's a return to the horrifying fallout of a murder in a small town with the great visuals and audio plus the wonderful chemistry between Tennant and Colman. The bit with the pressed flower linking back to the crime scene made me wonder if Claire is going to end up a Myra Hindley type, or if that would be too cruel a trick to happen to poor Ellie again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
I'm really excited for this season now. I think a surprise Not Guilty plea is the perfect way for this to go. Can someone clear up for me what was going on with the woman being hired to prosecute? I'm not very familiar with the British legal system - is it normal practice for a victim's family to hire the prosecutor instead of the
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Well, I certainly didn't expect the confession to get completely stricken from record.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Jsor posted:Well, I certainly didn't expect the confession to get completely stricken from record. There was no other way for it to move forward. Beth seems to be losing it, she's like a hair away from attacking Ellie with a crowbar which would probably add even more complications to the case. Plus once Mark's secret friendship with Tom is revealed things for the prosecution will get really tough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Beth seems to be losing it, she's like a hair away from attacking Ellie with a crowbar which would probably add even more complications to the case. Beth would then accuse Ellie of setting it up to help Joe's case! I'm not complaining, mind, Beth's reactions are completely, reasonably unreasonable - she's a grieving mother who has had the wound of her son's death reopened and it makes sense that she's going to fly off the handle and tear into Ellie/see conspiracies etc. I don't know how Hardy thought his little scheme could possibly not blow up in his face, if Lee wasn't so creepy I'd be starting to wonder if he might not be innocent after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Goddamn but it was weird to see that last scene playing out not 300 metres or so from my parent's house. I like the direction they have taken with this and not gone for another murder, Midsomer style. I am really distracted by Charlotte Rampling's odd resemblance to Geoffrey Rush too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I'm not complaining, mind, Beth's reactions are completely, reasonably unreasonable - she's a grieving mother who has had the wound of her son's death reopened and it makes sense that she's going to fly off the handle and tear into Ellie/see conspiracies etc. They must be setting up something for Beth to absolutely lose it and do something that compromises the case further, like torching Ellie's house. I'd like for this series to be a bit darker in tone and not wrap up happily for most everyone as the case falls apart, people's private lives are dragged into the spotlight, DI Hardy goes down in flames and his career is over, Tom has to live the reality that his father, a "known" murderer, walks free, etc. Looking over the first series, there are tons of red flags the defense can bring up, especially all the things involving Ellie. Without the underlying great mystery, the ratings seem to have taken a hit, even though I find the story much more engaging aside from the weird Hardy's past case comes back to haunt him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Joe knows that for the trial to take place the crown and the defense will have to dig into the lives of everyone involved and out absolutely everything. He feels like what happened with Danny was an accident and he shouldn't be punished for it when so many other people in the town have secrets they don't want known. Mark will have to admit to his affairs, Hardy's past case work will get exposed, Ellie will be under insane scrutiny given her involvement and all her detective work will be poured over for even the slightest error, her sister will be dragged through the wringer, the local paper and that one reporter will get shredded for their involvement, etc. etc. Like how the shopkeeper was "outed" without any context and ruined his life (he killed himself because the attention brought back how much he missed his son) the same thing will happen to everyone else marginally related to the case. I agree with most of this, and the town's dirty laundry is certainly being exposed. I just want to crow about how the defense team explicitly talked about how they weren't expecting to find anything from Danny's body and did it just to get under the Prosecutor's skin, so they're just as scummy as I thought. See also this exchange during the Doctor's (Tennant's) testimony: Defense Attorney: Who allowed (Ellie) to visit mr.. Miller? Doctor: I did. I supervised along with two other officers. DA: What happened? Doctor: DS Miller attacked the defendant. DA: She kicked the living daylights out of him didn't she? And you... you just stood there and watched didn't you? Doctor: No, as soon as she started attacking him I called in other officers, and they removed DS Miller. It was my error. It had been a long and emotional investigation. DA: How many other times was the defendant beaten while in custody? Doctor: (emphatically) None. DA: Did you use violence against the defendant in the house in order to get him to make a confession? Doctor: Absolutely not DA: Why should we believe you? An officer who by his own admission stood by and watched as a colleague beat up a suspect? Dotor: No that's not how that happened. DA: My lady, the defense calls for the confession to be excluded (paraphrase) Judge: I approve the defense's motion. Two major points here: 1. Where in that testimony does Tennant say he just stood there and watched? 2. The prosecutor right after Tennant's testimony brings up the legit point that the confession is on camera, and injuries sustained after he confessed. Seems like a straightforward way to line up an order of events here, and prove Miller wasn't coerced. Anyway, I don't mean to rant on this, I just think there was a better way to write this scene with the prosecution/detectives coming across bad and getting the confession thrown out while not putting words in their mouths and ignoring evidence. In conclusion, the next episode should start with the defense team dead from hypothermia caused by the Inn's cold water.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
NowonSA posted:
I guess you could say that this bit quote:Doctor: No, as soon as she started attacking him I called in other officers, and they removed DS Miller. It was my error. could be twisted to look like that. He didn't say he intervened personally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Rondette posted:I am really distracted by Charlotte Rampling's odd resemblance to Geoffrey Rush too. Have you ever seen The Night Porter? If not, watch that and you'll see Rampling in an entirely different way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
In between watching the first and second episodes of this I watched the first 3 episodes of Agent Carter. So it was weird to suddenly recognize the killer(???) of the old case as Jarvis the Butler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Regy Rusty posted:In between watching the first and second episodes of this I watched the first 3 episodes of Agent Carter. So it was weird to suddenly recognize the killer(???) of the old case as Jarvis the Butler. Haha I just came to the same realization over in the Agent Carter thread - I was wondering why the guy seemed so familiar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
They seem to really be pushing the defence as being unscrupulous bastards. I know that's just how it usually goes in telly courtroom drama with murders and stuff but they're a bit cartoon villain so far. Waiting to see what happened with Claire and stalker chap. I get the feeling it was supposed to be kind of ambiguous whether he kidnapped her or they decided to flit off together. e: also I am so bad with the names in this. I can remember some of the old ones at least. Oh, brainwave, I just worked out which ones I remember. It's the ones Tennant yells very loudly. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
op/thread you mind if i post reviews here
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
I watched Broadchurch on Netflix, but i followed Gracepoint as it aired, so my mind is a little confused because the american actors are the newest in my head, but it is nice to have the show back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:op/thread you mind if i post reviews here Go for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Broadchurch "Season Two, Episode One" Series 2, Episode 1 "Things fall apart." This stray observation by DI Hardy (David Tennant) at the beginning of the second season of Broadchurch, this line carelessly tossed away in the first three minutes of the premiere, sums up the main theme of Series Two as a whole. Things fall apart. Hardy's job; he quit after the arrest of Joe Miller (Matthew Gravelle). Ellie's (Olivia Coleman) job; she transferred to another precinct, moved away from Broadchurch entirely. Claire Ripley's (Eve Myles) protection; her husband, Lee (James D'Arcy), is back, and stalking her. The Sandbrook case, obviously. The Latimers; Mark (Andrew Buchan) is off playing video games with Tom (Adam Wilson) and lying to Beth (Jodie Whittaker) about it, who is an emotional wreck and due to give birth any minute. And, finally, the town of Broadchurch itself; the revelation of Joe's "Not Guilty" plea deflates the entire community, arguably the best character of the show. There's a definite sense of fatalism, a lifelessness present in the town that wasn't there during Season One, not even during its worst moments. It's a dark start to what seems to be a dark season of Broadchurch, and we're talking about a show that began with a child being murdered. Broadchurch's Series Two premiere has to juggle many, many different balls. It, firstly, has to serve as very nearly a repilot of the show itself; the last time it aired on UK television was almost two years prior, so the episode has to serve as somewhat a reintroduction to the overarcing narrative of the universe the show has established. Quick impressions are given for principal cast members, their relationships to each other, and their current status in the show: Hardy's still struggling with his pain issues, Ellie's in the middle of one long nervous breakdown, etc. etc. This is, for the most part, accomplished well enough; only the priest's scenes suffer from the compressed introductions in the episode's overarcing narrative. Secondly, the premiere has to introduce a whole new cast of major players; Lee and Beth Ashworth, obviously, and the barristers for both prosecution and defense in the upcoming Miller case. This also works as well as it realistically could have; there's a couple of narrative shortcuts the episode takes (the show is clearly on the side of the prosecution, so the ending scene involves the, of course, morally and ethically compromised barristers ordering Danny's body dug up for autopsy, complete with poo poo-eating grins on their faces as the Lattimer family is utterly crushed by the indignity of it all), but overall, on the whole, every one of the new characters introduced comes across as compelling and at least vaguely sympathetic, Lee obviously excluded. Thirdly and finally, the episode has to reconnect both the main cast to the new and bring everyone back into each other's orbits. Bring the band back together, as it were. This is where the episode kind of falls apart. The plotting for the season premiere comes across as clearly secondary; it's a patchwork and obvious thing, rocketing from point to point so that Miller and Hardy are thick as thieves and working together by the end of it despite one of them not even technically being a detective any more. The worst part of it is, the Miller/Hardy plotline isn't even the most egregious fault of everyone knowing exactly where it was going and waiting impatiently for it to arrive at its destination; Joe Miller's trial is shockingly poorly executed as a plot, from nearly every angle. It's extremely poorly, and obviously, foreshadowed that he's going to plead "Not Guilty" the moment the reporters interviewing Hardy start framing Joe's plea as the moment when Broadchurch can start to heal. The repercussions from his plea, with Joe's smug defense to his shocked lawyer that he's "not going down" for the Danny murder is eye-rollingly poorly executed. If there's one thing the finale for Season One did right, it was insist in no uncertain terms- make clear as crystal -that Joe murdered Danny, and backtracking on that revelation by hinting at some larger conspiracy at play is frankly just loving stupid. This trend of the viewer knowing exactly where the plot is heading and the episode fumbling the execution of those plots persist to all angles of the premiere. The show has three separate scenes of a female character that is clearly going to end up doing a thing insisting that, in no uncertain terms, she will not end up doing that thing: both of the main counsels for prosecution and defense out-of-hand reject taking the Miller case, and Ellie refuses to interact with Claire. Again, it's not the predictability of the plot that's the issue; it's the how that predictability is illustrated onscreen, with flat insistence from the characters over and over, stated declarations refusing to acknowledge events that are about to happen. The Latimers need Joe to confess his crimes, so they can heal and start anew as a family, so of course he doesn't. The retired prosection lawyer has not one, but two separate scenes flatly refusing to take on Danny's case, so of course the suspiciously well-timed news report changes her mind just in time for the episode's climax. And on and on and on. The frustrating part of it all is that the plot failures are in large part more reflective of the show's weaknesses in general. Series One of Broadchurch is a somewhat infuriating affair, where it has a genuinely brilliant pilot and plot progression for about three-quarters of the season's run and almost completely falls apart by its finale. The number of times a suspect ends up not having killed Danny, but ends up being either involved with or being a pedophile becomes laughable. On a themic level, the revelations work: so much of Broadchurch Series One is about the secrets communities keep and the complicated morality of something even as heinous as pedophilia. It even works the first time in the season, with the shop owner, because of the novelty value and clear parallelism between the shop owner and the Danny case. But then it happens again and again and again, and it continues to happen, until even if the reveals work as an abstracted point, as pure symbolism, it breaks the immersion of the show completely as the viewer realizes that literally everyone who is a suspect is a pedophile. The writer of this show- Chris Chibnall, who is also the showrunner -has written every episode thus far, and clearly wants Broadchurch to be a larger statement on the human condition. He clearly wants the show to arrive at its statements symbolically, esoterically; so much of every scene in both the past season and the first episode of this one is draped in allusion, meant to convey its greater themes via the dialog of its human avatars. The plotting, as well, is bent to reinforce that larger point;Broadchurch Series One was meant to illustrate how small towns can allow a greater crime to happen via their selective memories; their willingness to hide and look past secrets in others. It was also meant to illustrate the hypocritical morals of everyone, from individuals to groups as a whole. And finally, it was a show that tried very desperately to illustrate how even the most heinous of crimes, from child murder to pedophilia, are perpretrated by the most ordinary- even likable -of people. The problem is Broadchurch Series One ran against the practical problem of this symbolism heavy, complicated statement on the human condition and predilection for evil story also happening to be a police procedural and ended up solving both in the absolute worst way possible. The decision to make all main suspects, including Joe Miller himself, into pedophiles stretched the show's believability past its own breaking point and, inversely, undercut the show's own message; instead of a complicated, deft and subtle argument, the show eventually devolved into near farce as its "PEDOPHILES AREN'T INHERENTLY EVIL" statement was hammered home with all the subtlety of a literal hammer to a literal face. The conclusion one arrives when looking at Broadchurch Series Two is that it's a "rough with the smooth" type show and always has been. The plotting issues the Series Two premiere has might be reflective of having to cram so much into so short a time- seriously, the show just skips from scene to scene, barely stopping for breath -or might be from just an overall plotting failure the show has, a tradeoff the average viewer makes for and oft-times wondrous programme. Because, make no mistakes, Broadchurch when it is on is some absolutely riveting television, and in that aspect the show hasn't skipped a beat in its near-two-year hiatus. The acting has always been stellar- Olivia Coleman is unbelievable television, and Ellie's therapy session is worth watching the episode for itself. David Tennant, in his first episode back as Alec Hardy, gives a surprisingly restrained performance that works well for the character: he's almost the eye of the storm this episode, as the tempest of plot developments rages around him. Really, though, although one can pick apart the rote and poorly executed plot, the strength of Broadchurch has never been about what happens, but how what happens affects everyone in the Broadchurch universe. I'm hard-pressed to think of a show that more succinctly and honestly portrays raw human grief, and despite how obvious and dull Joe's "Not Guilty" plea is, the courtroom's emotional reactions -Ellie's simple, unbelieving "No!", Beth's sobbing, Hardy's barely-restrained anger, Mark's unrestrained anger- drat IT, JOE! YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!" -is enthralling stuff. Broadchurch is a show that paints with so broad (heh heh) a brush that it doesn't work on a detailed, mechanical level, which makes its decision to be a police procedural especially bizarre. The hope coming out of Series One was that it had simply abandoned its own trappings and became a show about the town and its goings-on, since the show is at its best when it's about the banal lives of its residents, especially the specific and varied ways they coped with Danny's murder. It's why its decision to have Joe plead "Not Guilty" is so worrisome; although the fear is lessened by Joe's statements implying that he knows other people's secrets, which is why he's pleading "Not Guilty" in the first place, the intimations the show is making about how he could, might, maybe possibly not be the killer and just the unlucky fall guy would be a really, really awful twist that would retroactively destroy the overall decent narrative the show had established up to this point. If the revisiting of Danny's murder and the attendant trial is really solely about divulging more secrets about its residents, as long as they're not all pedophilia-related revelations, this season will be great- fantastic, even. If the Latimer trial is another way at showing how the people of Broadchurch react to yet another tragedy befalling their little town, in this case being a hugely unnecessary, showboat-y trial with morally and ethically corrupt barristers doing everything they can to win, so much the better. If the Ashworth stuff is a way to delve into Hardy's backstory and illustrate the specific choices that he made that led him to Broadchurch in the first place, that's great too. All of the major arcs introduced in the season premiere are conceptually very interesting; it's just with the mess that is the Series One finale one wonders if they were even necessary, to be honest. The show doesn't need a mystery to solve to be good; in fact, the mystery aspects of the first season were its worst parts. Things fall apart. Let's hope that Broadchurch does, but Broadchurch doesn't. Stray Observations:
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
I'm going to go straight into this from Gracepoint, it seems the names and everything are similar enough that I should experience flashbacks and dissonance simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
I still think you're overstating the pedophile thing, since for the most part people were suspected/accused of pedophilia by people who were trying to wrap their heads around why somebody would kill a kid. It always turned out to be a misconception, usually based on people's own prejudices, as well as the show being careful to frame things so they seemed plausible as suspects. In the end the only actual pedophile in the show was himself in such deep denial of it that he never actually "did" anything with Danny. That he reacted as violently as he did when Danny forced the issue out into the open was because he didn't want to believe it of himself. We're seeing that now again in season 2 as he has once again decided he can't be the horrible person he is and is externalizing blame everywhere but on himself, throwing everybody's lives into turmoil again because he can't face up to what he is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
I really enjoy your reviews, Occ, and I'm happy to see you reviewing a current show I'm following. Even though a lot of the plot points and story are heavily telegraphed before they happen, I'm finding Series 2 almost as compelling as the first. The Not Guilty plea that shocked and appalled everybody in the courtroom was a great dramatic moment, but it left me wondering how the legal system is so full of idiots. It's granted that, even with a confession, a defendant will typically do everything they can to save their own rear end and to hell with everybody else. Yet no cop, no laywer, nobody mentioned, "Hey, he might plead Not Guilty. We don't think so, but he might. Yeah, there's a confession, but he could always try to get it thrown out." Hardy being as surprised as everyone seemed a little weird, considering he's been written as the jaded, hard-rear end detective up to this point. Surely it should have crossed his mind that Joe Miller might act like a defendant in court instead of acting like a naughty neighbor making it up to everybody. I hope the characters get a little less stupid as the show continues, but I dunno. Hardy running his own stupid little witness protection program. Mark Latimer is stupidly sneaking off to secretly hang out with young Tom Miller. Even Ellie Miller left her toddler alone in the car - the kid was sleeping peacefully and there was a uniformed officer nearby, but stupid move from a mother who is under gossipy small-town scrutiny because she didn't realize the father of her children was a murderous perv.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Just watched the first two episodes. This show really is fantastic. I tried watching Gracepoint, but it was just so... off. This show might be the most beautifully shot show in television history. It's truly fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
I just finished watching the first series after seeing this thread and the show popping up on Netflix, and I have to vent, I hope you don't mind: This show is the single best drama TV show I've seen to come out of Britain, but it's also maybe the single most manipulative thing I've ever watched. The number of bizarre coincidences they pile on top of one another to explore the themes of the show leaves me unsure how I feel at the end. I mean, obviously the fact that the murderer happened to be the husband of the secondary on the case is pretty incredible. But then, the journalist who starts the entire journalism subplot is also her nephew? And Broadchurch is some kind of beacon for victims and perpetrators of sex crimes, so that we get not one, but two old people trying to flee their past. And the lead just happens to be both gravely ill, but also fresh off another case of child murder, AND he bungled the case BUT it's not totally his fault. But it's not even just that, it's that the murderer is the single most sympathetic pedophile imaginable. He never does anything illegal, until one day, out of the blue, he accidentally murders the boy. To make everything as maximally tragic as possible, realizing that a huge chunk of the audience would immediately see him as subhuman if there was a sexual relationship, they just make him a damaged, pathetic man who never actually commits a crime until the big one. They try to have it both ways that the murder was committed in a delirious panic, but also that it was done by strangling the boy with his bare hands. Then, for maximum effect in the final reveal, they never give the slightest hint that he's unstable. Nige gets to be creepy, Susan gets to be creepy, even the children and father get time to be suspicious and sneaky, everyone on this drat show gets creepy time except for the husband. I know this is how murder mysteries work, with red herrings and false leads, but the degree to which they basically suppress the very existence of Miller's husband is pretty amazing. If you were sufficiently cynical, you could conclude that Joe Miller did it simply because he's the only character that isn't developed or shown behaving suspiciously. And then it all ends on an anticlimactic lucky break, because the show needs Hardy to find the killer before Miller does so they can have those touching scenes where Hardy breaks it to her. I don't mean to be hostile to the show because - again - I really liked it, but I've never felt so nakedly manipulated by a TV show, from the ridiculous plot, to the constant slow-mo music-video shots of emotional outbursts, to the impossibly personally invested cops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:I mean, obviously the fact that the murderer happened to be the husband of the secondary on the case is pretty incredible. But then, the journalist who starts the entire journalism subplot is also her nephew? It's a small close-knit town, though.. it's not really that far outside of the realm of possibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
ERMAGERHD DAVID TENNANT DROVE PAST MY MUM AND DAD'S HOUSE
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Consider Joe being all friendly and inviting Hardy around for dinner though. At the time it just seems like the kind of thing that an affable, likeable guy would do in order to help out his wife in improving her relationship with her new boss etc. Once we know he's the one responsible for Danny's death though, it takes on a much colder and more manipulative light. He was basically trying to get as much information as he could to find out if they were on the right track. Where I think the show's strength lies is that Joe may not even be conscious of the fact he is doing this, or so deeply in denial that he uses the idea of forming a friendship with Hardy/improving Ellie's working relationship with him to cover up his own desire to find out how the case is going. He wants to be a lovely, nice bloke who only has everybody's best interests at heart, but whether he wants to admit it or not (and season 2 has shown he doesn't), he's pretty much doing all of this for his own benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
I knew this wasn't going to be light watching but the way the trial is going is pretty horrendous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 23:05
|
|