Anatomy of a scandal ...netflix

[Bluetitsfly]

BRILLIANT!!! had to binge the lot. Sienna Miller just wow... underestimated her !

Yes, once the 'twist', which wasn't that much of a twist, was revealed there wasn't much to the story.

We all knew he was guilty from the start, didn't he? If for no other reason than that a story based on fake accusations of assault would be very dodgy territory in the 'me too' era.

So there really wasn't much to the story. Not much by way of character development or suspense. Some very dodgy acting too.

Well, it’s based on a book, so I guess the plot was already written.

I mean, rape cases are notoriously hard to win. The premise of the story is that Kate is a brilliant prosecutor, and basically doesn’t lose.

But, she does lose. In the book, it details how she lost a low profile domestic abuse husband/wife case - even though the husband was guilty.

And in the book, it even outlines why - all the defence has to do is a). be more persuasive, and b). plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the jury. Once that sees of doubt is there, it’s game over.

And it’s so, so simple to do that in a rape case - ‘he said’, ‘she said’, and there are so very rarely any witness. If the jury can’t be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, the rapist can’t be convicted.

So while Kate might have a good rack record of prosecuting rapists, it’s never going to be infallible - and someone as clever as she is, would surely know a jury would believe an MP who’s best friends with the Prime Minister, over some 20-something who sleeps with her boss.

Wouldn’t she have been wiser to give the case to someone else, and then appear as a credible witness herself - with the gravitas of being an Oxford graduate, respected barrister with 20-odd years experience, who was raped in virtually identical circumstances - James, on the move, in an adrenaline-filled situation, who rapes the woman who crosses his path while standing, while saying the exact same misogynistic line?

Well, it’s based on a book, so I guess the plot was already written.

I wonder if the 'twist' worked better in the book, where you get to form your own picture of how the characters look? Rather than having the same woman played by two actresses who looked nothing like each other, even allowing for the passage of time?

I thought it was OK but a few things really bothered me:

• The timeline. It seems he’s been assigned a prosecution barrister before he’s even been spoken to by the police. And it seemed that he was charged and in court within a matter of days. He raped her in October, it was reported around Christmas, and then we are in court late December as the trial date was set for 1st April ‘in 3 months time’. In reality it would be months or maybe even years before he was charged.
• i absolutely hate to say it - and I wish this wasn’t true - but rape cases are notoriously hard to prosecute and the likelihood of a situation whereby two people in an extramarital affair starting off having sex, but the woman changes her mind, reaching court with absolutely no forensic evidence whatsoever, would not happen.
• I struggle to think of what crime, other than possessing a Class A Drug, the PM and the MP would be guilty of WRT the Libertines death. It’s not a crime, and never has been a crime, to walk away from an accidental death. It probably would end the PM’s career (and that’s a big ‘probably’) but I don’t know what the police would care for
• the barrister being Holly was ridiculous. Aside from the fact a barrister at that professional level wouldn’t do something like that, a name change is not hard to track down. And I get that Holly had to look different but not many 19yo women grow a foot taller in adulthood
• sienna Miller’s character came across as a bit dense as she didn’t seem especially upset by the affair at first but as time went on she seemed utterly surprised and perplexed that he did things like had sex with his mistress or expressed feelings for her. In fact the whole show was lacking in any decent characters. The best character was the PR bloke who at least had a personality

The whole way through the cross examination of MP bloke by Kate, I kept thinking of Lady Mary and the Dead Turk. Did she say no? Yes, several times. It was weird. I kept thinking, oh, Lady Mary must be thinking about that... and then remembering that she wasn't Lady Mary.

The narrative around consent has changed a lot in ca. 10 years. I don't think Julian Fellowes could write that scene now and frame it as consensual sex. I had a similar thing ca 2009 with a friend who pressured me into sex when I didn't want it. I never would have called it anything because in the end I just went with it, but I didn't want it and he actually knew I didn't.

sienna Miller’s character came across as a bit dense as she didn’t seem especially upset by the affair at first but as time went on she seemed utterly surprised and perplexed that he did things like had sex with his mistress or expressed feelings for her. In fact the whole show was lacking in any decent characters. The best character was the PR bloke who at least had a personality

This is true. They were all personality vacuums. Could be bad acting or maybe that's how the 'characters' were written.

Secondly I was irritated that Holly Berry was about 5ft tall but Kate was about 5ft 8

such a good point!!!!!

it was highly watchable but the ending irritated me so much. Would you really have the father of your children arrested and sent to prison needlessly? Leaving him was one thing but the rest was so extra.

what I did actually really find interesting and wish was pursued more was the angle of consent from both parties. The part where James breaks down and says maybe as he didn’t know her she didn’t take it in the way intended…I agree there was a time where it was all quite blurry, and the assault scene at the university does show that very well - how he thinks she’s fine with it when she’s not etc.

sienna Miller was fantastic

I was disappointed that Sophie was not more contrite when she met Kate at the end - I had expected her to have gone on more of a journey than that

why should Sophie be contrite? She’s not responsible for the actions of her husband.

I thought it was very believable that her initial reaction was to try to minimise in her own mind and keep the family together, but that being faced with details in court - particularly at the end when she had
to listen to her husband saying he loved someone else - made The difference.

I didn’t find the cross examination between Kate and James convincing at all. So much repetition and so many phrases that would have been stopped by the judge/defence team