Des: Episode 2

 "Death gives no refunds..."

Yes, I know, I don't usually blog the same programme on consecutive days, but this time I have, so nyeeer. Something different next time, though, I promise!

Another superb bit of telly here, and another superlative performance from David Tennant, adding further layers. Dennis Nilsen is still the paradoxical monster with principles from last episode, yet this time he's more sinister and controlling... indeed, a very controlling man, co-operating (or not) on his own terms. It was he who complained about his drains in the first place, wanting to be caught: he's been trying to curate the whole thing. And then the curveball at the end, as the trial begins and he unexpectedly tries to plead not guilty.

Yet at the same time he's... well, DI Peter Jay describes him to the press as "unassuming". And this is nevertheless a man who loves his dog. Brian Masters uncovers certain things about Nilsen's past for his book (a real book, which no doubt garnered many extra sales from this series), but quite rightly resists the urge to draw conclusions. And Masters' own motives eventually become clear: the definitive book on Nilsen's crimes must come from within the gay community in such deeply homophobic times.

The other cause of conflict here is Peter's desire to identify all fifteen victims and the reality that the police are a public service like any other and must justify their costs. With six victims identified... six murders will put Nilsen behind bars forever. It's the right decision, awful though it is, to end the investigation there. But, after they identify a seventh victim too late to prosecute, we see the human cost as Peter has to explain this to the devastated widow. This series refuses to glamorise the killer and puts the victims first, always.

If anything, this episode is even better than the first. Very impressive indeed.

Poirot: The King of Clubs

 "Dear oh dear! Here we go again..."

This is one of those stories with a very Agatha Christie twist about the very murder itself. It feels well-executed. It's well-acted and well-produced. Yet, once again, despite all this plus the very palpable period richness, it somehow isn't anywhere close to being as satisfying as, say, the Granada Sherlock Holmes.

It's clever, yes, but in a very clockwork, very typical Agatha Christie way. I suppose, being from a ahort story as all this series is- suggesting this format is not deal- this is inevitable, and perhaps explains why I feel so lukewarm about a firt series that,objectively speaking, seems to have much to recommend it.

Neverthleless... it's a nice glimpse into the film industry in the 1930s,with more than usual period charm. There is, again, a nicely judged ense that Japp, although Poirot may run rings around him, is nevertheless a seasoned and competent professional who is, alas, not a genius.

It's an entertaining and well-made fifty minutes, I suppose. Buta certain spark is missing,

The Return of Sherlock Holmes: Silver Blaze

 “That was the curious incident..”

This episode, and the short story upon which it is based, is in fact quite atypical, yet paradoxically very much the popular impression of a typical Sherlock Holmes story. There is a purity in how what we get is a pure murder mystery, told methodically with no cheating, with all the clues laid before us.

It is an excellent whodunit, of course- the short story is a standout classic- but difficult to adapt well for a series that depends far more on Victorian colour and idiosyncratic acting for its success. Indeed, while Jeremy Brett is superlative as ever, there is little here in the way of windows into Holmes’ soul for him to latch on to. 

Nevertheless, the tale is told well, with gorgeous Devon location filming and a nicely nuanced guest performance from Peter Barkworth. There’s nothing really to fault the episode. It’s simply a very straight whodunit with very little else happening.

It must be said, though, that this is a fine whodunit, and the final summing up is most satisfying. That this episode does not really stand out is simply a matter of the story not translating well to the visual medium.