UNFORGIVABLE - Thur 24/7 bbc 2 - 9pm - TV PACE NO SPOILERS

[Blondeshavemorefun]

Very weird This in on bbc 2 not one. Maybe due to sport ?

Sure many will miss it

The series, titled Unforgivable (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/jimmy-mcgovern-bbc-drama-anna-friel-anna-maxwell-martin-newsupdate/), is said to explore the impact of grooming and sexual abuse on one family, and the images give us glimpses of stars including Anna Friel (Marcella), Anna Maxwell Martin (Line of Duty (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/line-of-duty-cast/)), Bobby Schofield (SAS Rogue Heroes (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/sas-rogue-heroes-season-3-release-date/)) and David Threlfall (Nightsleeper (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/nightsleeper-season-2-release-date/)) in character.

The drama is set and filmed in Liverpool, and centres around the Mitchell family, who are dealing with the devastating aftermath of an act of abuse perpetrated by a member of their own family.

The synopsis for Unforgivable says: "Having served his prison sentence, Joe (Schofield) arrives at St Maura's, an institution which offers him a home and rehabilitation after his release.

With the support of Katherine (Martin), an ex-nun, Joe undertakes therapy sessions in the hope of understanding what led him to commit the abuse and to face up to the consequences.

Simultaneously, his sister, Anna (Friel), is dealing with the enormous impact that Joe's crime has had on her family - her sons, Tom (Austin Haynes) and Peter (Fin McParland), and her father, Brian (Threlfall).

The drama examines the extensive ripple effect of abuse from multiple perspectives and how those involved can try to move forwards in the midst of the devastation."

The series also stars Mark Womack (The Responder), Paddy Rowan (This Town) and Phina Oruche (Magpie Murders (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/moonflower-murders-cast/)) in supporting roles.

Beyond Time, McGovern has also been known for creating shows including The Street, Moving On, Accused, Banished and Broken.

I read somewhere that Joe was in this city is ours

but who as ?

I work in a secondary school and was cheering her on.

Jimmy McGovern is such a brilliant writer. I do like his style and it’s always gritty and straight forwards.

the one with the big mop of curly hair

bonehead

I liked this, I'm glad there was some kind of resolution at the end. Although I'm left wanting more, it felt like so much more could have been done with it, it was also really well acted.

Thought Tom's comment at the end about it being unfair was quite poignant, he also mentioned in his counseling session how he missed having Joe around. So I wonder if in the 9 months more had come out, but it was Tom's comment that made the Dad go over to Joe.

I did almost cry when Joe was hugged by his Dad and asked to go for a pint.

Oh. Bonehead. Wow

I thought the hug and last line "Fancy a pint?" demonstrated how little understanding the grandfather had about how actions impact on others, including his wife, daughter and grandsons. Hated it.

I don’t think the grandad totally understood either :(
Luckily Tom had his mum on his side who certainly
did!

I think that I have loved everything that Jimmy McGovern has written, but the ending seemed unresolved to me, which to be fair is realistic.

The acting was sublime.

A very difficult watch.

Thought Tom's comment at the end about it being unfair was quite poignant, he also mentioned in his counseling session how he missed having Joe around. So I wonder if in the 9 months more had come out, but it was Tom's comment that made the Dad go over to Joe.

I think it was because of Tom’s comment, plus seeing Joe alone, and the fact that Paul was found not guilty of abusing his son. So it was a highly believable gesture in my view, further underlined by the dad not reacting to Joe’s apology, in that we can infer that he still loves Joe and wants him in his life, but perhaps can’t ever forgive him.

The ending ruined it for me. The idea that the Anna Friel character would bring her child to court to listen to that and be in the same room as her abuser - well that was utterly ridiculous

I’ve watched it again. It has some superb elements but others that diminish the impact. It getting to trial in 9 months is so far from realistic it’s laughable. The average fron my experience and others in similar situations is. 2-2.5 MINIMUM to get to court. That delay has serious implications for the victims. Anna being angry about all the help Joe got in prison vs the support and help offered to the victim… spot on. There is little to no help available and what is available takes a LONG time (eg my child still awaiting counselling and the abuser is out of prison this week having served half of a 2 year sentence… that was 2.5 years to get to court…. Meanwhile he had almost daily counselling inside).
the justification of the abuse because Joe was himself abused still angers me. Not all abused people abuse and it still doesn’t justify it.
anna wouldn’t have taken the boys to the court. I doubt she would even have wanted to attend herself much less take her victim child. The not guilty verdict (though not right) was sadly accurate, 4% of reported cases get to court. Though around 80% that make it there do end in conviction.

I don’t think that any mum would want to sit in at the trial, but maybe her dad asked her to go along or she wanted to see what the outcome was herself? Taking the boys too was a bit much, but it is only a drama and people can surprise you sometimes with what they feel might be appropriate.
The rest of it was good though, well acted and food for thought. It’s a shame that the system takes so long now , 9 months was also far fetched as it takes ages for most things to get to court these days.

I watched this. Jimmy McGovern doesn't put a foot wrong. Typically hard-hitting but brilliant acting by everyone involved.

I got the impression - I’m not sure how or why - that the boys attended the trial through choice. I honestly cannot imagine their mother dragging them there.

I wondered about this, mostly due to the phonecall Anna received at work that “her son was at the police station”

She rushed there only to find it was her other son, not Tom.

….but we never found out why he was there?

Does anybody know what that was all about?

I think it was just there to show that he also lashing out as he was being neglected while she was focussed on Tom.

@murasakiPossibly. But it felt a bit off, like a bit chunk had been missing.

I had thought for a second that he was also going to accuse Paul, as it showed him in his football gear and I thought possibly Paul was still coaching / abusing kids.

But it jumped from the police station to the back at home with no mention of it.

Agree, and that's why a two parter might have worked better.

I enjoyed it, and there were lots of excellent and very realistic elements to it, but I hated the end, and feel like the character of Joe did not ring true at all.

Of course the narrative leads you to sympathise with Joe, because it’s perfectly scripted to give you a very sanitised version of his crime, in an otherwise likeable individual, and to focus on his own abuse. We know many abusers were themselves abused. Should we also feel sorry for Paul, because he may have been abused too?

I would have liked Joe’s Dad to tell him he believed him, and then left it there. The line about going for a pint, the boys in the courtroom, Tom seeming to want to build bridges with Joe- as if it’s ever that simple, as if it can be somehow made all ok in the end with everyone playing happy families again. ( I do think Tom would be feeling conflicted about it all, his speech about feeling guilty that his mum and brother no longer saw Joe rang true - but in real life he would need support to understand that this was Joe’s doing, not his).

These people destroy lives (regardless of what happened to them as children- which I have every sympathy for- when they are children), and the idea of Grandad and Joe making amends while Tom seems to be leaning towards thinking Joe isn’t so bad after all- it just felt at odds with some of the excellent earlier scenes where Tom was obviously severely affected by the abuse.

It was extremely well acted and well written. It’s a very complex story. I think at the end Tom had compassion for his uncle as a victim. Of course in real life, he never would been in that courtroom. You can have some compassion for Joe as a child victim while believing as an adult he had a choice and he must pay for it.

Agree with all of this.

Joe’s crime was very sanitised. I kept expecting it to be revealed that he was lying / downplaying it and he had actually done much worse to Tom.

I think if that had been the case it would be very different.

Joe basically did the absolute minimum that could be considered abuse / paedophilia because it was obvious that the intention was to sympathise with him.

I can’t imagine the “fancy a pint?” line working if his crimes against Tom had been worse.

Joe basically did the absolute minimum that could be considered abuse / paedophilia because it was obvious that the intention was to sympathise with him.

That’s a reductive and cynical way to look at it. It’s also not how Jimmy McGovern works as a writer. What Joe did was abhorrent and consequently, Tom was obviously traumatised, so I don’t understand the ‘sanitised’ comment. I’m also taken aback from your “could he considered abuse” remark because how can anyone not consider that abuse? There was no intention from Jimmy McGovern - in my view - to sympathise with Joe because of the inexcusable abuse he inflicted, but some people did because Joe too is a victim.

Interesting show but disappointing ending. Usually love JM and it’s definitely thought provoking. But! The ending… Grandad feeling sympathy for his son, who has abused his grandson, likely after the comment made by his grandson, who sympathises with his uncle because he hasn’t been believed and should have been. But nephew can only sympathize because he was abused by his uncle! Christ on a bike. What a mess! It doesn’t seem plausible to me that either child would have been in the court room. As a mother, the line for me would have been the abuse of my child and that would have been it. Dead to me. Yes, he’d been abused himself but that doesn’t excuse his actions. At all. It’s almost as though grandad making friends again with uncle will lead to nephew thinking it’s time to forgive! And that cannot/would not happen in the real world. The nephew feeling sorry for his uncle after what he’d done to him was the bit that got me, but not in a good way. Abhorrent.

but true to life
there are plenty of people that forgive abusers