The Fall

[hollyisalovelyname]

Watched it last night. Tis good, but disturbing. Gillian Anderson very good. Jamie Dornan scary. Anyone else see it?

Pfaffer I agree with you- its obvious that a man wrote the script I think. I also felt much of the violence we could have imagined. We did not need to see it. Did we need to see so many close ups of G A 's botoxed mouth? Jealous.....moi? Noooo!!! It was all a bit gratuitous- i think that's the word. But it was a good psychological thriller. Lots of holes in it yes, but what thriller doesn't have them. One does have to suspend disbelief sometimes. I was disappointed there was no conclusion. I watched the American version of The Killing and that too had two series. Hate hanging on. I signed up for 5 weeks, not 10
Is this a cross /angry emocion - i hate them on the iphone - i can't make out some of them, they used to be so much clearer.

yes, Pfaffer, i think that's it. i was reading hotair's post and thinking 'yeah, wtf is my problem with that character? she's deffo feministy etc, that's clearly demonstrated by that list'... but i think you have it... she kind of doesn't act like any actual woman i've ever met in my life, it's like she's been designed by someone who wants to mansplain what a strong woman is like, iykwim?

YES

She is a mansplanation.

And I vaguely hate myself because I have quite enjoyed the series, although - ffs - they can piss off with their cliffhanger.

And I do like her blouses, although you can practically hear the pen scratching the paper as they go through the Killing checklist, can't you?

Basically I have a Scully-related crush on GA, a hangover from the 90s, so I've been trying hard to overlook my discomfort and just roll with it.

But if the writers are reading: you have really tested my patience. Get some women in to help you write character, please.

No, hotair, I agree with you about the way she deals with misogyny - esp with your earlier point (I think it was you, apologies if not) that you want to see lots more characters like that: it's a really good point. There have been some very good moments and some good lines. But for me, there is no character there, just a series of one-liners or short speeches or cool stares or sex acts. I can't put my finger on it. She's just not real. (To me, anyway.)

Another thing which kind of bothers me about The Fall is this.

Practically all the women are good. Honest, innocent, young and misguided, giving, devout etc.

Practically all the men are in some sort of shit up to their necks. Political, personal, criminal, moral, you name it. Not acts of weakness but choices they have made to be bad.

Of the main characters I think the only exception would be the policeman who is investigating the cop-shooting (who called the main policeman 'a weak man').

I find that jarring, too. Heavy handed.

i could absolutely see the wife responding as she did in the short-term, whoever it was mentioned hysterical bonding made a good point, imo. but to pack up the house while he was away and get it all into the car... without pausing to think 'actually this is a bit fucked up here', that doesn't seem right.

i really don't know any people like whatserface at all, actually. i know a fair few cool attractive women who happily call out misogyny when they see it, but thinking about it they are generally happily partnered up. (now that i think of it, they're mostly gay though.)

and the cop who's investigating that shooting is presented as rather a jobsworth, i think. so, ya know, not masculine enough to pull on a jacket and attract the likes of whatever-she's-called.

DH is convinced the logical conclusion (seeing as this has been a bit of a fantasy series in some ways) is that GA and the Hot Pathologist end up in bed together.

Actually to be fair to DH, he voiced this is 'oh for god's sake, they're going to make her a lesbian, aren't they?' in a rather tired voice.
He's not enjoying the series, really.

I'm really hoping that the next series shows us more of the killer's background and build-up to the events of the first series. For example, how and why did he get together with his wife and has he always had a secret other life in addition to having his first two children with her? I think there's a whole lotta stuff to be explored... For that reason I like the fact that there are lots of plotholes/unexplained behaviours...

Yy to Stella being a mansplaination. I saw Alan Cubitt saying somewhere that he deliberately didn't want to give her any backstory - but in doing that, he's just made her a total blank as a character, which is the least feminist thing you can do as a writer - to deny your lead woman character the chance to be a fully fleshed out human being. The only reason it is just about working is that GA is a good enough actress to make us think that Something Profound is being said here. and her blouses are distracting us

It's like Alan Cubitt read about feminism in a book somewhere, got righteously fired up and decided to create a feminism-by-numbers show without actually thinking about the overall dynamic he was creating or whether he's actually doing anything remotely original.

I mean, I thought the whole point of the hook of the programme of showing the killer's life in parallel with the cop's would be that you should get a proper psychological insight into the killer. But he's getting an awful lot of screen time and for all that we're not getting anything other than 'possibly lived in care - therefore a murderer!' grimness. So all we're actually getting out of his scenes are titillation when he kills and a gorgeous male model face to look at the rest of the time. I have no idea what we're supposed to make of him or why he kills apart from Stella's occasional psychobabble ponderings, and that again I think is weakness in writing his character.

I feel like the show is trying to make me be a voyeur, and I don't like that. In fact it reminds me an awful lot of another show which did a similar thing, Dollhouse (from the normally saintly Joss Whedon). It was another show by male writer which was all Rape Is Bad! (Now how can we make it sexy?!)

(btw I do think the wife's reaction is just about believable - I've seen enough affair threads on here where the DW is desperate to sweep things under the carpet - and the hysterical bonding etc.)

More succinctly: Alan Cubitt has misunderstood the distinction between making a feminist show about male violence and making a feminist point about male violence. It's possible to do the latter within the context of an otherwise deeply unfeminist show, and that is what The Fall is an example of.

It's a great shame as the cast is so good. Missed opportunity. They should have commissioned a woman to write it.

Or at least had more input from a woman/women in the writing.
I think the drive he had to write something containing some of the more feminist scenes is a generally good thing.

Another problem this series has is it's saleability abroad: lots of things have obviously been included to emulate the success of The Killing et al. Strong, unreadable woman lead: check. Iconic item of clothing: check. Stylishly filmed murders: check. Put together by numbers: sadly, check.

Right, I re-watched today. Weirdly the end bit where he is jogging at the end wasn't on the iPlayer version.

I definitely don't think GA is an icon of feminism and now that you all mention it, I do think that that is one of the the things they perhaps wanted the viewer to take away. I didn't, I just watched it as a criminal drama where police woman wants to catch the killer - and that's it.

There was nothing that made me particularly admire her as a strong female character (not doubting that she was) apart from when she said to the male officer she's 'not interested in judging' - at that point I was thinking "that bloke needs telling!" So I did get some satisfaction from that bit, but I would have done had it been said by a man or a woman, actually.

The plot holes were just annoying. The car - surely the wife would have mentioned it. AP knowing someone whose former boyfriend strangled her - too much of a coincidence! And the wife's reaction. Perhaps this is a shock reaction, as some of you suggest, I don't know. I did get annoyed that she had to pack up their belongings by herself whilst he was out yet again. What?? No, you stay here and pack up the bloody things. Pull your finger out you cheating bastard. Is what I would have said.

I think GA may have been a former rape victim perhaps or has had some sort of trauma in her past. It seemed to be implied during her convo with Peter/Paul. I am hoping the gangster thing will be cleverly tied in with the rest of the plot in series 2 - a lot needs putting together in series 2. I think I will know within 5 mins of series 2 if I like series 1 anymore than I did, if you see what I mean.

Talking of plot holes. Surely GA character has seen the CCTV footage of the solicitor going into the park and then a man and a young girl going in through the gate? She knows that he has a daughter. Surely, she would put two and two together?

delphi what did she say to Paul that you think she might have had trauma in her life?

Yes the not helping with the packing thing annoyed me too! And the fact that he went out to 'make some calls'- right yeah you just go out wandering while I sort stuff out, the fact I think you shagged the babysitter doesn't make me suspicious at all now! But then his wife has consistently not noticed that he's aloof monosyllabic and uninvolved.

But, it's a drama, they needed to get him out the house to make the call. Nearly all of these types of dramas have these types of holes as they need to move towards certain plot points. Glaring holes can really jar and spoil a show though.

I don't know any women like GA. i think she is meant to come across as an unusual women. An unusual person; with the degree of her self control, self containment, directness and lack of interest in others perceptions of her. They are just particularly unusual characteristics for women, and women in dramas.

This doesn't worry me though as I also didn't know any men like Cracker, Jack Bauer, or Don Draper. but I liked those shows too (to varying degrees).

I do think some of you should maybe stick to documentaries.

Feminist leaning documentaries written by women, about women like you and your friends, who all behave in a rational predictable manner.

Don Draper drove me nuts. No way, just no way.
(For the record )

Euphemia, who should stick to 'feminist leaning documentaries written by women, about women like you and your friends, who all behave in a rational predictable manner'?

I loved Mad Men. Hated Don Draper but was addicted to see what he did next. My point being just becaus you don't know people like the characters in dramas doesn't make them badlyn drawn characters.

well actually it does if you find them totally unconvincing as characters.

Yes but not knowing someone who is like that, is quite different to finding them unconvincing.

Drama: TV, film, literature, are crammed with characters unlike anyone I know. Some convincing, some unconvincing.

So being unlike anyone I know does not equal unconvincing or convincing, in itself.

How dull art would be if it could only be about everyday ordinary type people that we'd all recognise from everyday life. Some drama is like this and that's it's strength, some is about extraordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, and that's it's strength.

Fine if you think a character is unconvincing, but I think 'because I don't know anyone like that' is an unconvincing argument to justify this.

yup, that's actually the only negative thing that has been said about all of the characters in this show. that we personally don't know anyone like them...

Im addressing that particular point. Which you made as a criticism of GAs character.

I have no where indicated it is the only criticism which had been made .

You seem to have lost the idea if discussion/debate.

Let me help: Someone make a point- others agree/disagree- give their reasons- counter reasons additional points made by both sides as the debate continues.

Chucking in 'that's not the only thing I said' when someone challenges one of the points you've made is hardly coherent.