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]

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...