This is surely one of the most gripping, harrowing and superbly produced TV films of recent times:
-
-
- terrific performance by Billy Barrett (some fantastic child/teen actors around at the moment). Perhaps a teenissimy bit "preachy" - but a message that needs to be "praught". In this sense, in the best traditions of Cathy Come Home.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT] -
I didn't find it 'preachy' except in the pre-final-credit messages. Of course the programme was making a point that children in the UK over the age of 10 are subject to the adult system of criminal justice in breach of International Rights of the Child. It is also quite unacceptable that children's names can be released to the public (and thus the press) however dire their alleged crimes may be.
But ignoring any 'messages' and taking it as a piece of drama in its own right, I think it was superbly done.Comment
-
When I'm required to resume paying for my TV licence, I shall find some comfort in the thought that the BBC still broadcasts dramas of such exceptional quality. The number of 10 to 14 year-olds the UK has put, and continues to put, on trial was a shocking eye-opener for me.Comment
-
I think you've illustrated my point for me, ardy: the abominable socio-political issues were forcefully presented to anyone who watched (and quite rightly - they are a stain on our Justice system, and need correcting). As well as the pernicious publication of names and the resulting abuses by the press that you mention, the grim irony that a 30-year-old with the mental age of a 12-year-old cannot be held legally responsible for their actions, whilst a 10-year-old child can be (and put on trial as if they were 30-year-olds) is horrific - and this was powerfully communicated. But I don't think that these "messages" could be ignored - the "piece of drama in its own right" depended upon them (and that is not meant as any sort of negative comment).Originally posted by ardcarp View Post
What I meant to suggest was that the necessity of communicating such points made for a couple of moments of (and I repeat, teensissimally bit) "clunky" dialogue - would a barrister really communicate the bit about the 30-year-old to a 12-year-old client in those circumstances, for example?
Perhaps more seriously, was the Ray character just a bit too ... "nice"? Too polite? Geared towards arousing the immediate support of the audience? Wouldn't it have been a better drama if he'd been less sympathetic ... more like his older brother, or the Billy Casper character in Kes: not immediately attractive, but whose innate "goodness" gradually emerges through the course of the story? Possibly - but then last night's film would have had to be longer, to allow time for that development to happen; and that would have risked losing the taut narrative that was such an impressive feature of last night's film. (And losing, too, the superb performance of Billy Barrett. That moment after his dream ... wow! Such a contrast from the "poise" of his earlier portrayal - and a perfectly-timed "release" of the tension the character had been holding in/suppressing throughout his arrest and trial.) As you said in your OP, "gripping and harrowing".[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]Comment
-
I could hardly make myself watch to the end of this. What an indictment of our system of 'justice' and investigation of issues.Last edited by DracoM; 17-12-19, 10:19.Comment
-
Fair point, but I gather the story was 'based on fact', and I presume the play was written by someone who had researched the details.Perhaps more seriously, was the Ray character just a bit too ... "nice"? Too polite? Geared towards arousing the immediate support of the audience? Wouldn't it have been a better drama if he'd been less sympathetic ...Comment
Comment