Last week, I watched 'The Child in Time' on BBC1. I was expecting great things. Over the last year, I had been really impressed with the BBC's 'pure dramas.' From 'Doctor Foster' to 'In the Dark', 'Line of Duty' to 'Strike' (yes, I still haven't got over Strike no longer being on!) it was clear the BBC had invested lots of time and money in excellent script writing, compelling stories and marvellous actors. In all these dramas, I felt like I was with the protagonist, watching their struggle as they battled for the truth and justice. The trailer for 'Child in Time' appeared impressive. A child went missing, the parents (obviously) were emotional and distraught and, presumably, the audience would find out what happened. The main protagonist was Benedict Cumberbatch, who was entertaining to watch in 'Sherlock.' Every ingredient for perfection was there. However, my reaction to the show was, at best, confusing and, at worst, a waste of time.
First, I'll start with my one positive about the drama. As you've gathered, the general gist to this blog will be quite negative (sorry!), so I may as well begin with something I liked. I found the changes in time hugely enjoyable. It was a unique thing to do with this type of genre and cleverly linked to the title. Though this was slated by many on twitter (not sure if that's the most reliable form of opinion), the changes in time before and after the abduction was hugely effective. Seeing how the parents, Stephen and Julie Lewis, behaved before the abduction and how the abduction changed them showed the harrowing effects of a child going missing. Seeing them happy one minute and devastated bought to life how there are good days and bad. As for the critics of this technique, let's be honest. You only had to see whether the little girl was present to know if this was set pre or post abduction. It can't have been that hard to follow. That's where my praise ends, I'm afraid. From then on, I couldn't help but agree with every word the tweeters tweeted during the programme. Most of the time, I was thinking exactly the same thing. Most of the time, it was: WHERE WERE THE POLICE? One of the most crucial elements of any crime drama was missing. Apart from the start, when Cumberbatch was in the police car, grieving as his daughter had initially vanished, no police officer appeared. It was though Government cuts were so severe that the family were left to search themselves, relying on a private investigator that, again, we never see. Maybe cuts to the BBC left the corporation desperate as few actors as possible. If that was the case, what was the point of making the drama? In any real abduction, family liaison officers would be so influential in helping the members get through the tragic events, even if the case appeared fruitless. Liaison officers were non-existent. No wonder the couple split up. As you would expect, there were a number of side stories within the drama. These had the potential to be brilliant and teach us lots about the characters and events leading up to the disappearance. Sadly, nearly all of the side stories were utterly pointless, getting the audience no nearer to discovering the location of Kate – dead or alive. We were introduced to Charles, a friend of Stephen (the main protagonist), desperate to lose his responsibility that being a book publisher and adviser to the Prime Minister inevitably led to. While this seemed fine, as he and his wife retire to the beautiful countryside, it ended rather sadly. Charles went mad before committing suicide. Initially, I thought his madness and implicit references to disappearing children might suggest he was responsible for Kate's abduction, but so no such evidence came to light. His death was sad, nothing else. If that bizarre plot story wasn't enough, 'The Child in Time' had plenty of other crazy things lined up, which had nothing to do with the main objective: FINDING KATE. It was though she had been forgotten about. Maybe her parents were trying to survive life without, but that wasn't the crime drama I saw advertised. The audience learns that, as well as being a children's author, Stephen sits on an education committee. While it was excellent to see him denouncing some loony who thought children shouldn't be read books until the age of 11, it, like Charles, didn't seem to go anywhere. Stephen got chatting to a woman on the committee, all the audience thought romance waiting to happen – except it didn't. We were left on the edge of our seats as they strolled along the Thames, until she strolled off alone. What was the point of it? The third mega weird sub-plot was Stephen supposedly seeing his parents, before he was born. He knew the pub where his mother had announced her pregnancy of Stephen. Except Stephen as physical human had never been to the pub and his parents had never told him about the pub. Strange. It reminded me of a R.E topic we did in year 9, about a boy who believed he lived a former life on some Scottish island. Strange. What was the meaning of this? Apart from Stephen's parents rightful confused reaction, this sub-plot, like the others.... guess what...went no further! The sub-plot, though initially bizarre, could have added to the story. We could have witnesses the effects of a breakdown following the disappearance of someone you love. How the trauma affects the person day after day. Instead, we were left with awkward, but posh, dinner conversations. I love a clear plot ending. When I've finishing reading, or watching something, I love to know what happens to all the characters. Unless there are sequels, I want to know where they go, what happens in their life and, most importantly, are they happy. As viewers, we have all invested time watching or reading something. If the writing is effective, these characters should become real. There should be a desire to know what happens. 'The Child in Time' fails here, well, unbelievably. Instead of actually telling us whether Kate is found alive or sadly dies, the episode with Julia, Kate's mother, giving birth to a child. Kate is initially holding Stephen's hand as he rushes to the maternity ward, but we then realize this is a figment of his imagination. What an awful ending. Whilst it is pleasing to see the smooth birth of a baby, I was left feeling deflated. Where was Kate? Who had taken her that day from the supermarket? I wanted to know. I cared. There was no answer. 'The Child in Time' was far too short. Trying to fit the whole plot – the disappearance, failed search, psychological impacts, side stories and outcome – into 90 minutes may have seen possible at the start, but didn’t seem to work. I believe the story could have been far more effectively told if there were four episodes, each one hour long. That way, it would be easier to get to know the characters and have their emotions, stories and desires drawn out. The plot wouldn't have to be so rushed, sub-plots could fully shin and close neatly and everyone would have four Sunday evenings to look forward to. Though I found the programme disappointing, I will still be inspired to read the book. A book that mustn't be read doesn't exist (double negative, I apologize). Maybe the book will shed some light on my confusion. Perhaps I should watch the programme again. After all, people always spot things the second time that were missed the first. No thanks, I'll decline. I don't want a licence fee refund. Instead, I want the time spent watching the programme back.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|