I confess I am at something of a loss...

[byslantedlight]

...as they might have said in the programme... Did anyone else watch The Suspicions of Mr Whicher tonight? The Radio Times says: "Of course the source material is impeccable; Summerscale's book is a finely tuned and superbly researched mystery, but writer Neil McKay keeps a tight hold on all of the original's essential elements." and that might be true, but... I found it just a wee bit less than gripping, or interesting or anything other than... I'm not even sure what I found it. What were the essential elements that it was important to impart to us, over a hundred years later?

What am I missing? I saw a story where the Met detective followed the obvious clues, found an obvious story, and was foiled by the lies of the local police. I didn't gather any particular reason for those lies, except that the local policeman harboured a respect for Mr Kent that we were told wasn't shared by most of the locals. Not that anyone actually spoke out against Mr Kent that we saw - until the maid from his previous family randomly appeared. Whicher didn't offer her testimony at the hearing though... So then Kent hired a lawyer who pointed out the obvious flaws in Whichover's basically non-existant evidence, and Constance was released. Only to randomly decide to confess at some later date, although the drama heavily implied that... well, they seemed to think that she did do it, but with the help of her brother who got off scot free... Only... well, why did she suddenly need to confess? She was safe, the brother was safe... The bloody nightgown had allegedly been found - only to have, apparently, been returned to where it came from by the local policeman, who lied about it to Whicher. So... that was perhaps why Constance decided to confess? Only...

...and in the meantime, having been humiliated and effectively thrown out of the Met, Whicher turned to drink - though he was pulled out of it by his good friend and colleague Dolly, who came to his house to give him all the new news about the case/nightgown/confession etc. But... why? And Dolly was the man that Whicher insisted he must have urgently to help with the case, cos he couldn't trust the local police - but all Dolly did was hang around in the background... I... just... am at a complete and utter loss as to the point and interest of this programme or any of its characters...

Has anyone read the book? Does it at least have the feel of a mystery solved, or a story of humanity in times of trial, or...? Was the programme just a dreadful, dull adaptation, or did it miss some vital spark? Or did I miss some vital spark? Or...?

Comments

[llywela13.livejournal.com]

I watched it. I had much the same reaction. I actually fell asleep toward the end! I wanted very much to find out whodunnit, but that had as much to do with having read/seen all the hype beforehand (I was very good and didn't let myself Google the answer, but in retrospect maybe I should have, I could have saved myself two hours). The show itself was pretty dull.

As far as I understood it, bearing in mind that I was rather sleepy, the local constable at first massively resented having this London detective stepping on his toes and scoffing at the conclusions he had drawn. He later realised that he had cocked up enormously when he dismissed the bloody nightgown that had been found (that happened before Whicher came along, I think), only it was too late to do anything about it, so he covered it up. Constance eventually confessed because she'd become religious and presumably had an attack of guilt and decided she couldn't live with it any longer - although she clearly didn't feel badly enough to drop her brother in it. I don't think he wanted Dolly there because he thought there was anything Dolly could do, as such, he just wanted the moral support of a friendly face to bounce ideas off.

The plot mostly made sense to me, although it wasn't as mysterious as the press had made out (all that hype about whodunnit, but we actually saw very little of that general suspicion being thrown around in all directions). The story was just...unengaging. There was nothing about the character of Whicher himself to root for. He was dull and he made a lot of mistakes. I kept feeling that I should be feeling sorry for him, as he was clearly under a lot of pressure to deliver a result that was practically impossible to achieve, given the limitations of the resources available to a detective in the 1860s. But I couldn't feel sorry for him because nothing about the character inspired my sympathy or interest.

There was definitely some kind of vital spark missing. I'm not sure what it was. The performances seemed strong enough and the period detail was well done. Yet the final product was definitely missing something.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

That sounds pretty much as I saw it... oddly enough, thinking about the story itself makes me feel it should have been completely engaging. What a tale of humanity - the scorned children, the selfish (?) step/parents, the resulting murder of a young child by two other children, who as adults finally emigrated to Australia together, years and years later... There is really such a story there - but all about the two children themselves, not about the detecting of the crime... Obviously you've got to work it out to write about it, but... I wonder if Summerscale had written it from the pov of Constance, or even of William, if it would have been much more compelling... How easy for any of us to end up feeling as they did, the horror being what tiny thing might have tipped their balance to committing murder... Or from the governess/stepmother's pov - the events set off so many years later when she fell for her employer... The more I think about it, the more it seems as if the right focus is what was missing... I wasn't at all interested in Whicher - we weren't given anything to make him likeable, or admirable in any way - he wasn't clever, he didn't even get results by behaving badly, which meant that we just saw him behaving badly... and yet we didn't feel how this lack really affected him either, so I couldn't even feel sorry for him... And yet reviews rave about it all - I'm still baffled! *g*

[llywela13.livejournal.com]

The lack of clear focus is what I keep coming back to, as well. It was such a flat, straightforward narrative of events (events which lacked a clear narrative to follow, moreover, being a true story and therefore as untidy as real life tends to be, rather than a properly crafted tale designed for public consumption) and made little or no attempt to actually explore the dramatic angles it touched upon. There was very little mystery, despite it being billed as a gripping whodunnit, and very little exploration of any of the characters' feelings or motivations. It felt superficial, in fact, as if it was just scratching the surface of what could have been such an interesting story. It was as if the story didn't know what it was supposed to be - a gripping murder-mystery, an exposé of the limitations of Victorian policing, or the tale of a once lauded detective watching his career fall apart as he fails to resolve this hugely important case. Instead of picking one of those angles and really going for it, the show attempted to strike a balance between them all, and in so doing failed to do justice to any of them, so that it turned into a flat narrative of events with no real human interest for us to engage with and no real resolution of any of the plot strands raised. If it had played as more of a psychological thriller, exploring the damaged mind of the teenage killer, or if it had explored the devastation of the parents and their struggle to accept what had happened and who was responsible and why, maybe if it had fictionalised the story a bit more and allowed itself to really explore the potential it only scratched at...

Oh, so many ways the story could have been spun to make it more engaging!

I keep seeing reviews that describe it as gripping. It really wasn't. I fell asleep watching it! So did my aunt, she told me when I talked to her last night (not the one in hospital, either, who would at least have an excuse). It did start off promisingly - the search for the missing child had me gripped...but then once the main plot kicked in, my attention soon wandered. I've read admiring comments about 'a household riddled with dysfunction and dark, bitter secrets of sex, madness, cruelty and jealousy', all of which is true...but those admiring reviewers seem to have seen something that passed me by completely, because as far as I could see, although the programme told us all about that dysfunction, madness, cruelty and jealousy, it failed to bring any of it to life on-screen.

Maybe that's the problem. It was all tell and not enough show, which is a fatal error for any programme.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I completely missed all the hype for the programme, which is probably just as well - I would never have called it a "gripping whodunnit", partly because we weren't really asked to guess whodunnit - we were told who'd almost certainly done it fairly quickly, and then it was all about proving her guilty... Now there's a frightening thought! There wasn't any effort made (on the show) to investigate anyone else at all, or to suggest that anyone else might have dunnit...

I think you're right about it being so much tell and barely any show as well - half the fun of being a viewer (or reader!) is figuring things out as you go along, so that when the conclusion comes you have something to relate to. "I didn't see that coming", or "I'm so clever, I worked it out!" or even just "I never did like him..." We weren't allowed to do any of that fun stuff in the show...

I'm enjoying The Crimson Petal and the White much more - last ep tonight, too!

[llywela13.livejournal.com]

we were told who'd almost certainly done it fairly quickly, and then it was all about proving her guilty... Now there's a frightening thought! There wasn't any effort made (on the show) to investigate anyone else at all, or to suggest that anyone else might have dunnit...
See, now that in itself could have been a really interesting angle to explore! It's an angle that Garrow's Law, for example, touches on from time to time - the limitations and restrictions of the relationship between early policing and the law. But although the show presented Whicher as completely in the right, he actually wasn't shown to be any more open-minded than the local police superintendant: both made up their minds early on about who was guilty and then set about proving their case, rather than exploring any other options.

We weren't allowed to do any of that fun stuff in the show...
No, we weren't, were we. :( We were told what had happened, told who to believe had done it, and then shown how Whicher failed to prove his case. What's to enjoy in that?

I meant to watch The Crimson Petal and the White but then what with one thing and another it passed me by completely. It's worth catching up with at some point, then?

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I meant to watch The Crimson Petal and the White but then what with one thing and another it passed me by completely. It's worth catching up with at some point, then?
Well I'm enjoying it, and looking forward to each new instalment, so I'd say so... *g* It's a bit different, a bit dark, and I'm wondering what's going to happen and kept interested all through, so... yes! Much better than Whicher...

[phantomas.livejournal.com]

I read the book last year, recommended as a fine example of creative non-fiction...and I found it somewhat boring, not documentary enough but neither mystery enough.

It's a true story, and apparently The Story (and Whicher) where investigative police (relatively new) was commented upon in newspapers and inspired writers to write crime in a certain way (website here: http://www.mrwhicher.com/)

And yes, the girl confessed at some point (in a totally pointless way, but I guess Criminal Minds would profile her as needing her moment of glory), and all the other things you noticed...dull.

I'm not sure why the book was so well received, to be honest. Yes, the story was at the time incredibly scandalous, but as I said, I don't think the book achieved that perfect mix of factual and fiction it's been acclaimed for.

I didn't watch it(I forgot, my housemate will not forgive me, she's a great Paddy Considine fan)..I was hoping they've done better than the book, but obviously not.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

recommended as a fine example of creative non-fiction
Interesting - on what basis was it supposed to be such a fine example? Because the facts were well-researched then, or...?

It really sounds as if it should make a brilliantly human story, but it just didn't on screen, and it sounds as if the book was the same... and yet people seem to be praising the billy-oh out of it! I wonder if they're praising what they see as the skill of writer, as far as her research went, rather than in the re-telling of the story...? The drama seemed to me to go through the mechanics of the case without actually touching on any human aspect at all, and it's that which gets me interested in stories... the feeling of them, not just what-happened... I wonder if they'd shown it from Constance's pov, and perhaps started way back when her father began sleeping with the governess, to give us a feel for her potential motives, whether it would have been more compelling as drama/a book...

[lisaloveslewis.livejournal.com]

I have read the book as well and was hoping the programme was going to be more engaging, sadly it wasn't. I took the confession to be because Constance found God and needed to be absolved. Wouldn't recommend any one bother with the book as it's pretty much the same, the story had the potential to be exciting but just lacked any sort of spark, I can only suppose it's because it's a true story and not that exciting to start with.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

It's funny, if I think of the story more as what-happened rather than a story, it seems as if there should be so much more scope to make it an interesting story! I mean - a man betrays his wife for their governess, his children are encouraged to mock their mother who dies. He then marries the governess and has two children with her - his first children realise that they are lesser in importance just as their mother once was. They try to run away from home, but are brought back; the daughter suffers either pretend or hysterical paralysis before their stepmother's new child is born. Still children themselves, they finally murder their young half-brother and dispose of his body in a privy, following a complex plan to throw the blame onto servants in the house. Although a blood-stained nightdress is found, the local policeman hides the evidence himself; a friend who at first spoke out about Constance changes her mind, and the family hires a lawyer for her defence, so that when the daughter is brought to trial there is nothing to convict her. Eventually Constance goes into a nunnery and then confesses to murder - she pointedly refuses to implicate her brother or anyone else, and is finally convicted. She is jailed rather than given the death penalty, and when released she and her brother emigrate to Australia together... How is that not an interesting story?! It should be! I wonder if the problem is that we were told the story from the pov of people wanting to show how clever they were for piecing it all together, rather than from the human aspect which is interesting...