Broadchurch

It doesn’t happen very often that the first episode of a series makes me immediately grab a pencil and put down some notes on how brilliant it was. Broadchurch did. I know I am a couple of months late to the party (and what a great and exciting party it was that grasped the British nation earlier this year). However, if I am not mistaken the series is currently shown in Australia (ABC1), Canada (Showcase) and in the US (BBC America), possibly some other countries as well, so I hope this little posting of mine is not completely out of place.

For eight weeks in March this year the question on everybody’s lips in the UK has been: “Who killed Danny?” Do not worry; I am not going to tell you. No spoilers ahead.

Source

What was it that made me so infatuated with Broadchurch? There’s an easy, one word answer: camerawork. There are so many beautiful still shots, be it the magnificent cliff on the shore, or some silly little detail on the beach, they are shot in such a mind-blowingly gorgeous way that… I would frame them, hang them on a wall and stare at them all day long. That’s what I call beauty! and it was reached by careful framing and perfect use of proportion in the pictures. And then, particularly in the first episode I noticed a lot of handheld camerawork, that shaky, slightly confused perception that substitutes a character’s visual angle, beautifully used especially in emotionally tense and dramatic moments. The directors and cinematographers deserve a medal.

While David Tennant is clearly the most famous and popular of the cast, he does not overshadow any of his co-stars and they all give very good and gripping performances. Nobody sticks out as particularly better or worse then the others.

The thing that feels so new and different about Broadchurch is equal attention given to multiple characters and different perspectives. I consider myself a bit of a connoisseur when it comes to crime television, and I can honestly tell you that I have seen a little too many shows, where the main focus is on the investigators. We always see their perspective, their back story and their take on things. (With a few bits and bobs on other people which usually hint us towards the culprit.) Broadchurch does not take this away, but adds on the feelings and perspectives of the family of the victim, close friends, and other members of the community. And the information is dosed slowly and carefully. Broachurch focuses on the wide and terrible effect such a heinous crime has on a community of people, on what a murder does to the people who are left behind. Violent death of a young boy rips a hole in the ordinary life of a small town and affects virtually everybody. A seed of distrust is planted, suspicion and anger tears people apart, while grief and memories pull them back together.

The format of 8 45-minute-long episodes provides enough time for slowly digging deeper into the mystery, enough time for the characters to gain depth and credibility. The story slowly circles around the suspects, subtly revealing tiny little clues and pieces of the puzzle, which it does more often by visual means than by words. I find that very appealing.

I also like that the show incidentally brings up a few of very current issues, one of them being the role of media in today’s society. Surprisingly, Broadchurch tells us that not all journalists are vultures, some of them are decent people. Sometimes they get unlucky. And sometimes the whole thing spins out of control so fast that nobody can do anything about it even if they wanted to. Media has a life of its own and it feeds on tragedies and gossip, not necessarily on truth. Most important thing to take away from this (if you didn’t know that already): the media do not simply convey reality; they always interpret facts in a certain way.

However, I don’t want you to think that I am entirely uncritical towards the series, although as you can tell I am very much smitten with it :) There was a couple of things that made me raise an eyebrow to say the least. No.1: the suspiciously silent solicitors. During my long and rich career of watching crime television, I have never seen solicitors who would, with such calm, listen to their client incriminate themselves. While the poor suspect is digging up the hole deeper and deeper, not once does their solicitor intervene with “You don’t have to answer this question” or something similar. I know they were of no consequence to the story, but it seemed odd and slightly unrealistic to me. No.2: the super qualified liaison officer, Peter, whose sole purpose on the series seems to be to try and lighten up the mood by being ridiculously useless.

There is a question that kept popping up throughout the whole series: is it actually any better – knowing who did it? Does it bring any kind of resolve or does it only make things harder? Would it or wouldn’t it be easier for the family and the community to be left in the unknown? I suppose, in the end it is left for you, the viewership, to decide for yourselves.

Olivia Colman, David Tennant. image source

The mystery that I am left with now is how on earth they plan to bring it back for series 2. Will they hit the town with another tragedy or will we follow some of the investigators elsewhere? Would that be "Broadchurch" though?... Anyway, I trust ITV to come up with a solution and surprise us with something brilliant!

My conclusion is a standing ovation! Ok, not a standing one. I didn’t bother rising from the sofa. But I did applaud. If this doesn’t win bucketloads of awards, there’s something wrong in the universe. There’s crime, beautiful camerawork, it’s well written, it’s got David Tennant (♥) and other good actors too… What’s not to like? If you haven’t already, I heartily recommend watching it!