I watched the new Cracker last night, the first time I've seen it. I know, it's just one of those things I somehow missed. The story was right up my street. Connectedness of things. The futile and self-defeating nature of violence. It was beautifully made and observed. I was very moved by it - I've watched it a second time already. Anthony Flanagan put in a superb performance as the traumatized soldier.
But Fitz was a real disappointment. Not Coltrane, mind you - Fitz. All that he did to the most beloved Barbara Flynn! The extent to which the detective leading the case existed purely to be an antagonist to Fitz, someone next to whom Fitz could be proven right. And all of it framed to elicit a sympathetic, forgiving response from the viewer. It was as if you could hear the writer: "Forgive us the most egregious acts, for we have special gifts of insight and understanding." I wasn't surprised, watching a documentary about Cracker, to hear Jimmy McGovern say how much of him was in Fitz. As I say, I never watched the show when it was on. Did Fitz always stand for the author and intrude to this extent? I was really very cross about it last night, although when I woke up again this morning, I decided if I could manage compassion for the murderer I could probably stretch it even as far as the writer.
But Fitz was a real disappointment. Not Coltrane, mind you - Fitz. All that he did to the most beloved Barbara Flynn! The extent to which the detective leading the case existed purely to be an antagonist to Fitz, someone next to whom Fitz could be proven right. And all of it framed to elicit a sympathetic, forgiving response from the viewer. It was as if you could hear the writer: "Forgive us the most egregious acts, for we have special gifts of insight and understanding." I wasn't surprised, watching a documentary about Cracker, to hear Jimmy McGovern say how much of him was in Fitz. As I say, I never watched the show when it was on. Did Fitz always stand for the author and intrude to this extent? I was really very cross about it last night, although when I woke up again this morning, I decided if I could manage compassion for the murderer I could probably stretch it even as far as the writer.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 04:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 04:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 04:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 05:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 05:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 05:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 07:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 04:49 pm (UTC)This one was directed by Antonia Bird, whom I like a lot, but even she couldn't do too much with the non-charismatic top detective.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 05:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 08:47 pm (UTC)I enjoyed last night - but it never really worked - Fitz was way to full of himself - he was far more humble and controled all those years ago - I could sort you out the early ones in divx if you drop me a line ...
no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 08:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 09:43 am (UTC)Gah, I've typed and retyped this comment about ten times now. Will think about it in my head a bit until I know what I actually think about Fitz (if ever). But just to echo someone else, that this was a pretty disappointing episode. It did what Cracker does (interconnectedness, futile and self-defeating nature of violence, superb performances by traumatized young men), but not as well as Cracker does it. It's usually better structured - at one point the other night I found myself wondering if they'd missed a reel, as it were (or did I miss something? I was sewing - why was Fitz in the room with Anthony Flanagan in the first place? The lack of context ruined the whole interaction for me, because for why did AF not just go away? If Terry Nation had written it, there would have been a bomb). And also, in the real Cracker there are very strong character arcs for the minor characters - I watched it partly for Fitz and Barbara Flynn (heart) and the politics/interconnectedness, but also very much for the Eccleston/guy with moustache/Jane Penhaligon arc, which was a superb piece of plotting/characterization, working itself out across the whole however many series there were. I suspect that Jimmy McG didn't really know how to develop minor characters in a one-off, which might explain the all-but-complete non-existence of anyone but Cracker and the baddy.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 09:56 am (UTC)That definitely says something.
why was Fitz in the room with Anthony Flanagan in the first place?
At the very end or earlier on at the station? At the station, Fitz walks past Anthony Flanagan in the corridor and BY THE SPECIAL POWERS OF HIS MIND GRANTED HIM intuits that this is the guy they're after. Which was lame.
for why did AF not just go away?
I could kind of justify that by thinking - ooh, but he wants above all to communicate his pain and in a way other than breaking people's necks in toilets but, yes, all he needed to do was get up and go. But Fitz was of course keeping him transfixed by the special powers of his mind.
OK, so it sounds as if what I really responded to in this episode I'll get more of in proper-Cracker, and what was crap is significantly downplayed. That's heartening.