-
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT] -
I certainly agree with that, or I wouldn't still be watching.Comment
-
Hmm, bit of a coincidence that, not only children the same age, not only both got into Oxford, but the same college.....
As for being dropped off by your parents, how things have changed - mine knew which university I went to, but that was as far as it went
Comment
-
This article sums up my misgivings about this series:
On another thread I called it "hideously gentrified" and the whole successful, wealthy family set-up - sustained over 20 years - with a successful lawyer going for the DPP job was surely a world away from the real stories on which the series was supposedly based. And one of the real-life victims has now confirmed it. I think it was intellectually dishonest and a waste of two excellent performers in Sophie Okonedo and Adrian Lester.Comment
-
I think it's becoming clear that she was "planted" into the role, manipulated by shifty political types for nefarious reasons yet to be disclosed.Originally posted by jean View Post[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]Comment
-
She's had serious fits and been diagnosed with epilepsy...and she's still driving a car!
It's a minor point perhaps, but an accumulation of small incredibilities contributes to the irritation.
Thats for the article, though. We had been wondering if any of the RL undercover officers had fallen in love and built families with their partners, been allowed to continue the deception amnd then 'reactivated', with new, increasingly incredible backstories to fill in the gaps.Originally posted by aeolium View Post
It seems not. No wonder the women are angry with this fictionalisation.
Or - if it did happen - wouldn't such an officer (in the words of the article) come clean straight away about his true identity rather than be bullied back into working for his old employers?
.Last edited by jean; 25-04-16, 09:28.Comment
-
Yes, I see...the difficulty there is that if she were as good a lawyer as to be up for the role, she'd be good enough to spot what was happening.Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View Post
And the original case she's so anxious to resume - how could that be so important to the police twenty years on, give the number of deaths in custody they've managed to cover up?Comment
-
However, my fear is that Undercover is to our stories what The Boy in Striped Pyjamas is to the Holocaust. A well-produced narrative based on an implausible premise that is both misleading and inauthentic.
The Boy in Striped Pyjamas* seems to be a very good comparison. Would people really want to watch if the reality of such an uncomfortable story were told 'tell it as it is'?
*I didn’t know this was made into a film though not surprising. It is a very attractive story.
(As I didn’t watch the programme, I can’t tell the quality of the drama but I thought the comparison interesting.)Last edited by doversoul1; 25-04-16, 21:04.Comment
-
No, I don't think The Boy In Striped Pyjamas was a very good comparison in that article. No imaginary filmic representation could conceivably give even the faintest idea of the horror of the Holocaust, and it could not be graphically portrayed. Yet since Undercover was supposed to be based on the real experiences of victims of police undercover operations it could have done a much better job of making its plot more dramatically plausible even if it did not need to replicate too closely what happened in real life.Originally posted by doversoul View PostComment
-
The Boy in Striped PyjamasOriginally posted by aeolium View Post
I was thinking about the book which did not need to involve visual representation but it is an ‘attractive’ (I know this is an inappropriate adjective but a useful one) subject, as is this drama. It is this comment I thought was apt;
‘A well-produced narrative based on an implausible premise that is both misleading and inauthentic’
I suppose it would be possible to make a plausible and authentic drama based on what actually happened but then would the BBC, or any mass media for that matter, want it? However I won’t discuss any further, since I don’t watch television and have little ideas about how things are.
[ed.] This drama seems to me to be a variation of Madam Butterfly; it isn’t the reality or authenticity but a fantasy that fits in their expectations that people enjoy.Last edited by doversoul1; 25-04-16, 22:47.Comment
-
Why not? It was presumably with the view of making the drama plausible and authentic that the writer of Undercover went to interview one of the victims of a real-life undercover operation. If the intention was to make a wholly different drama that was not related to those real-life experiences then he needn't have done that. The BBC regularly commissions dramatic series that they intend to be plausible and realistic. I am certainly also in favour of drama that is imaginative, fantastic, surreal, not realistic in a conventional sense, but I don't think the writer of this series was attempting anything like that.Originally posted by doversoul View PostComment
-
The more I think about it, though, the more I realise such a drama just wouldn't have worked. The undercover cop would have been completely unsympathetic from start to finish.Originally posted by aeolium View Post
Not that I think that meant it was a good idea to make the drama they did make.Comment
-
Just caught the final seconds of interview with writer Peter Moffat, just before 0900 on Today - iPlayer hasn't caught up, but he appeared to be trying to answer criticisms of the series. Will try again later.Comment
-
He was, mostly by revealing what's going to happen in the last two episodes.Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View PostComment
-
then perhaps I won't listen.
Ah well, back to Line of Duty
Comment
Comment