This box set, along with The Sopranos collection, was purchased well before I had the crazy idea of watching and reviewing 24 of the top critically acclaimed TV series of the last twenty years. And as I have just finished watching the last episode of Season #3, it is the next in the line up for a review. Unfortunately, as I watched the bulk of this collection many months ago, it is not exactly fresh in the memory so I may well miss out crucial elements - but that's just the way of the world. (I've also watched all episodes of every season of The Sopranos - but that series needs to be given full justice and may well be worthy of a repeat viewing for the sake of completing a fresher and better quality review.)
Anyway, let's stop whittering on and get on with it...
First the boring maths bit...
This box set contains the three seasons of Cracker. Each season consists of three episodes which makes nine episodes in total. However, two more stand-alone episodes were commissioned after the 3rd season ended meaning there are 11 episodes in this box set. An episode length varies because some were first broadcast in two installments over two weeks while some were of the three installment variety. Each installment was scheduled a one-hour slot but, with adverts and breaks, each one amounted to about 50 minutes in length. This made a full episode either a 100 minute affair or a mammoth 150 minuter. It does pay to know which type you're settling into because if you watch late at night and want to watch in the one sitting those two and a half hour episodes can really challenge your stamina to stay awake. (Not that they're dull mind you.) To confuse matters, the last two "special" episodes were shown in just one installment and were each about 100 minutes in length.
Just like Sherlock, the show itself is a "crime of the week" type affair which has the inept police befuddled and confused and totally unable to make head or tail of how the hell to proceed with a line of enquiry. Enter the huge, roly-poly figure of the great criminal psychologist, Fitz. Very much like a modern-day Sherlock Holmes, our Fitz (played by Robbie Coltrane) has deductive and reasoning skills well beyond the mere mortals he has to work with. Both Holmes and Fitz are experts at deducing facts from studying a crime scene and both have supreme psychological profiling abilities but the main difference between the character of Sherlock and Fitz is that rather than focusing on the reading of people by studying their appearance and what they wear, the emphasis on the latter character is his interrogation of suspects when brought in for questioning. In this respect, it makes Cracker more grounded in realism and a lot more believable (but, as we shall see later, no less ridiculously melodramatic).
Fitzy-babes will stop at nothing to get the truth out of his suspects and when a suspect is finally hauled in, his interrogation techniques can make for uncomfortable viewing. As he tries to tap into the other person's weaknesses and as they are often accused of serious crimes such as murder and sex offences, taboos involving family members and sexual relations with various partners are explored resulting in conversations that often seem downright perverse. However, as we're all aware that it's part of the process for getting a confession, it is a necessary evil.
This brings me to the actual character of Fitz. Now as a struggling poker player but also as someone who likes to think he can read other people in different ways, I was drawn to Cracker not only because of the psychological element to it, and how the protagonist attacks weaknesses, but also because in the promo material he is said to have a few weaknesses of his own that I could relate to. Being a "drunken excuse for a husband", a "lousy father" and a "gambling washout" may not quite be the terms in which I like to describe myself but I can, at least partly, identify with such things.
It was his penchant for gambling that I was mainly interested in because how, I thought, could such a "brilliant pychologist" - who can reason so well and understand so many principles - throw away and lose so much money at gambling? Surely, I reasoned, with such an aptitude for psychology he could not only avoid the casino games (where you're guaranteed to lose at, long-term) and move over to poker which gives the edge to, and generally rewards, the more skilled? This would also mean he could interact more socially with others AND engage in his put-downs when he tires of the ineptitude or incompetence of others around him (another trait shared with the character of Sherlock). But then, of course, there was the episode where he attends a gamblers' anonymous session where we see for ourselves the reason why he puts roulette above poker - he's one of those self-destructive type of gamblers who just love the buzz, quick thrill and rush of winning and wants that feeling again and again. And that's a strong addiction.
Of course there are other characters who appear throughout all the seasons as well and these are family and close friends who mean a lot to Cracker and who have a bearing on how he conducts his life. However, after Episode 4 "To Be A Somebody" which is the best episode in my opinion, these people in his life start to become so heavily embroiled in the cases he is involved in that it pushes the credibility boundary a little too far. By the time we get to the end of Season #2 in "Men Should Weep" they throw everything including the kitchen sink at us! The beginning of Season #3 doesn't let up as the drama is laid on with such an enormous trowel and to such overly melodramatic proportions that realism goes out the window (or off the edge of a building if you will) - there are just TOO many dramatic events coming at us TOO fast and furious. In retrospect, this may have had something to do with the fact that the series was shown in installments and so needed plenty off cliffhangers to keep the audience coming back, but having all this going on in one episode in its entirety is a bit much.
On the subject of drama, characters and friendship I was watching a documentary the other day on the history of the displaying of emotions through the ages. What struck a chord here was the idea that those who go overboard with their emotions on a regular basis tend, in some respects, to be more shallow than their more reserved counterparts who keep their emotions in check and who are more grounded. The logic behind it being that when the latter truly display outward feelings of emotion, they are somehow shown to be more genuine.
Now there was obviously more to it than that but, to me, this sort of logic helps to explain why Sherlock has the edge over Cracker when it comes to quality and depth. While Fitz has plenty of family and friends in his life to care about and to interact with, the choice of the writers to involve them so much means the drama and emotions run high - far too high. Sherlock, by his own admission has no friends at all and his relationship with his brother is stone cold to say the least. This means that, given Sherlock's situation and ability to detach himself from others, when he does have to make difficult decisions involving the lives of others - the situation comes across more genuinely and with more intensity and depth. So, yes, Cracker is a cracker for those who love their melodrama nice and thick like a rich cream cake but head for Sherlock for depth, sophistication and more class.
13
20 (FINE)
No comments:
Post a Comment