That would work.
I’d love to see that.
Alec was good in this episode-- sensitive, calm, empathetic, civil, subdued.
… and a long way from being Dr Who. Fwiw, the only time that came up for me was when Alec was conducting a formal interview alone with the vicar - putting The Doctor alone with Mr Amy Pond was a little challenging …
Thelma hangs her head and mumbles…>
*I’ve never seen even one episode of Dr. Who. *
tbh, I was more about Amy Pond anyway…
By the way, now that it’s all over, I noticed something here as well as on other British crime dramas. When the police were conducting a forensic examination of the scene where the body was found and then later the cabin, all of the technicians were wearing plastic overalls and shoe covers, presumably so as not to contaminate the evidence. And also when the body is found outside, they’ll erect a tent around it. I never see that in American crime dramas, where it looks like the police and forensic techs walk around the crime scene in street clothes.
Do British police really suit up like that? Do American police do so in real life, but it’s just not portrayed that way on television?
I dunno, but that bloody tent was up there for weeks; I thought someone had moved in.
Note: Spoilers abound in this post.
Feminist! What a ghastly accusation! The horror!!! :eek:
But yes: Susan is responsible for ruining the lives of several family members. Alec’s wife is responsible for ruining both his professional life and his personal life, as well as the lives of those affected by the crime she mishandled. And Ellie is responsible for Danny’s death and for her own ruined family. Women are the source and first cause of all trouble. (Or so we’re meant to infer.)
Similarly, in practically any Lifetime (the American cable channel) movie, A Man is Responsible for every negative feature of an innocent, noble, virtuous woman’s life. Men are the source and first cause of all trouble. (Or so we’re meant to infer.)
Gender scapegoating is scarcely limited to one gender, dude.
I agree with this. The expectation that particular characters Should Have Known provides the emotional kick of this series.
A stretch, I think. I’ll give you the adulterous wife. But Susan is ambiguous by my read. Seriously screwed up I’ll grant, but I think it is shaky to claim the show portrays her as having definitively ruined anyone’s life but her own. She almost ruins Nigel’s, but thankfully her mistake is corrected by the real killer being caught. You can just as easily cast her as a hardened and deluded victim.
And I’d have to strongly disagree with Ellie. Among those in the know the only one who blames her any is Beth, but that is understandable grief. I think as noted above, Alec’s lines about “how you don’t really know anyone” in the first episode is a cleaner takeaway. I think the show views Ellie as blameless and her line to Susan that gets thrown back in her face by Beth isn’t an indication that she really ought to have known. More that it was a mistake for Ellie to assume that Susan should have - karma spitting in her face, as it were ( and a big, big tipoff by the writers as to who the killer was - I think it was a mistake to include it, though I can see why they wanted that emotional punch ).
ETA: Meanwhile you have Beth’s ill-tempered, uncommunicative, philandering husband and the killer himself. I don’t think either gender got the plus end of the stick.
Getting back to this…I thought that was conjecture on his part, a warning as to what would happen if Beth confided in him.
I think he was a fraud. His first “vision” was about moving the body on a boat. Not too surprising on the coast with dozens of boats laying about. He’d been working at the police station installing the extra phones. He could have easily overheard them talking about how the victim had not been killed at the location in which he was found. They knew that almost immediately.
The second time he said the killer was someone close to them. Again, pretty obvious, it’s a small town. The suspects were Sea Scout leader, vicar and computer class teacher, father’s employee, etc, all of whom were close to the family.
I think he also said something about “getting a message” from the Great Beyond, someone with a certain initial. Beth didn’t respond to that, the initial didn’t mean anything to her so he dropped it. How often do these people give a vague description like that and the person responds, oh it’s my deceased great uncle’s second wife when a more logical [sic] contact would be their late mother.
So I think he was a cold reader.
British police do. I used to live in a sketchy part of London, where there was the occasional gang related knifing or shooting. I have observed the white paper suits with large police cordon. Haven’t seen the tent in real life, but have on the news - I think they use those when they have a body. Stops prying press photographers. I’d be amazed if US police didn’t do the same.
Absolutely. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. Alec was being cynical, borderline sarcastic even.
The character was a cypher imo, in the same way the London reporter was - they represented aspects of the circus that surrounds high profile investigations.
I find this post extraordinary. In a drama the central arc of which was actual or potential sexual abuse of children by men unable to control themselves, you think the theme was … actually you don’t say.
Susan didn’t abuse her daughter, Jack Marshall’s wife didn’t abuse her position of trust and authority, Beth and Ellie didn’t give Danny money and trinkets in return for hugs. Taking it further, Susan didn’t point a gun at a dog, the women of the town didn’t form a vigilante group to confront Jack, no women committed adultery, it wasn’t a woman who messed up the previous investigation at great cost to the family there.
Indeed, it seemed to me women were generally portrayed as hard working and struggling to balance work/career/family (Ellie and Beth), and as reasoned leaders (the newspaper, the police inspector), even business owners.
I agree with both points. I think Alec was being sarcastic about a book.
And I think the guy *was *a cold reader, but I also think he was sincere and wanted to be of help somehow. The reporter OTOH was an opportunistic user and if anyone is going to write the book, it will be her.
I could see Olly writing a book. He was already a local reporter covering the story and then of course the murderer was his own uncle.
Actually, it was: Hardy’s wife is the one who left the crucial evidence in a steal-able place while she stopped off to cheat on him. He merely took the blame for her.
(Which brings to mind a question: what’s the male equivalent of “mistress”?)
Why are the deceased always so *cryptic *when they “want” to communicate? 
BTW, who was the woman who came into the newspaper to get Olly and go see Ellie & the children? I don’t recall seeing her previously.
That was Olly’s mother and the sister of Ellie, the detective on the case.
It’s a fair cop, guv.
toyboy?
By the way, based on the reviews I’ve read elsewhere, the BBC America broadcast eliminated a short scene in which Mark Latimer (father of the victim) visited and spoke with Joe Miller (the murderer) in his jail cell. Presumably, the copy of the show that was sent for review was uncut.