Spoiler alert: this blog is for people watching Broadchurch 2. Don’t read on if you haven’t seen episode two.
Read Mark Lawson’s review of episode one here.
For those who spent the end portions of the first series of Broadchurch shouting at the telly in disbelief as Ellie Miller was allowed to attack her husband while he was still in police custody, it was oddly gratifying to see the legal profession this episode raise their eyebrows at the same. I say oddly, of course, because sometimes it’s better to be proved wrong. While it might be satisfying to have your frustrations with the actions of fictional police officers vindicated by fictional barristers and judges, I think I’d rather a plot hole than the Latimers plunged into the horror that is beginning to take shape. With Joe Miller’s confession now ruled inadmissible by the court, a central block of the prosecution has gone with it, and quite possibly any justice for Danny.
By taking the case that was meant to bring Alec Hardy redemption and turning into the case that could further underline his errors of judgement – even if in both events the fault lies with one of his colleagues – writer Chris Chibnall is creating the detective’s worst nightmare. And he’s also doing a pretty good job of representing the horror of a grieving parent being cross examined on the witness stand; Beth’s incomprehension at the questions being posed coming after the judge’s instruction that “we’re going to run this with courtesy, dignity and respect. For the court, for each other, and for everyone involved”.
It’s an interesting take on the courtroom drama. The lawyers given not exactly a back seat – Sharon is clearly driving things along pretty ferociously – but a more equal billing with the witnesses they are examining than is traditional, in much the same way the victim’ s family were prioritised within the whodunnit set up of series one. Even the concerns of the perpetrator get airtime; the defiant fury of Lee at having had his life destroyed despite the lack of conviction, sitting alongside Joe’s desire and motivation to see his son.
I’m not sure I think the Sandbrook elements of the story show quite the same deftness. I just about bought the idea that Hardy had taken it upon himself to keep Claire safe, following the collapse of the case. But I’m less convinced that he’d be using her as bait for the (presumably dangerous) husband she betrayed, and organising a meeting in a completely unsecured house which also happens to be the former home of a man being tried for a local murder, without notifying anybody else. It is, to borrow a word from Ellie, crackers.
Chibnall does acknowledge this to some extent. Ellie questions his plan and suggests that Hardy is being pushed towards madness, Lee’s reappearance and his continuing guilt over Sandbrook sending him over edge. But for me the storyline jars with Broadchurch’s great strength: that it shows terrible, but recognisable events destroying a community. We might not want to imagine that Danny’s murder could happen where we live, but we know perhaps it could. The storyline with Claire and Lee, however? That feels like something that happens on television.
The lawyers
How good to see female barristers and a female judge on screen – not to mention the acting talent on display here. It’s a real joy to have Charlotte Rampling, Marianne Jean-Baptiste and Meera Syal sharing a screen. Despite the judge’s best efforts, however, I don’t think this fight is going to be pretty.
‘What these men have done to us’
A quick note here about that amazing scene between Olivia Colman and Eve Myles in front of the beach huts. Destroyed by men yes, but not without fight. I watched it twice – mainly for those moments when we saw the flashes of the old, not-angry Ellie. God knows, however, where Claire’s disappearance will leave her. (“Promise me she’ll be safe.”) She hasn’t exactly got many reserves to fall back on, particularly if she’s surviving on Kit Kats, scotch eggs and chips.
Thoughts and observations
• I have two questions for lawyers. One: would anyone in Broadchurch really have had a say in who the prosecuting counsel would be? Surely it’s entirely in the hands of the CPS. Two: even if Hardy had recorded Lee confessing to Claire, would any of that been admissible as evidence? Please put us all out of our misery in the comments.
• Beth’s logic – that Ellie could have known that beating up Joe would make his confession inadmissible – is pretty sound. I was surprised that the judge didn’t consider it when ruling the confession out.
• On which note: did Joe realise that the confession might be tainted when he changed his plea (without legal advice)?
• We found out more about why Mark Latimer is hanging out, playing games with Tom Miller. “Maybe because I’d want someone to look out for Dan if it was the other way around. Part of it feels like it was my fault.”
• Sharon is apparently as hard as nails – but the phone call in the hotel suggests she also has her vulnerabilities.
• Oh Oliver. A trial liveblog? I can’t imagine where you got that idea from …
• I love the low-level aggression levelled at the defence team by Rebecca via the hotel: cold showers, no Wi-Fi, and complaints about the volume of phone calls.
• I’m not the first to mention it, but David Tennant’s blow-dry is really quite ridiculous
• “Three proper coffees, no foam.” I enjoy Maggie’s refusal to be modern.
Breathtaking British seaside shot of the week
Surely Jocelyn in her boat, floating on a perfect turquoise sea with the cliffs as backdrop. Though the perfect line of beach huts comes not far behind.
