Was Broadchurch better off?

Ben Homes

It’s been a couple of weeks now since the conclusion of the hit ITV show and now things have settled down a bit it doesn’t appear that anything particularly revolutionary happened after. There was no strong consensus in either direction and people just kind of stopped talking about it.

I think this was in part to the gradual decrease in quality from the excellent first episode as a carousel of ever more likely suspects rendered the whole socially relevant meaning more and more moot. By the final episode, Trish has become less of a prominent character and the show felt like it was trying to be more of a goodbye to the show itself.

The conclusion to the Latimer storyline worked fine but it felt shoehorned in and the rest of the town residents, Reverend Paul, in particular, seemed to be there for the sake of it.

Which is all a big shame. I’ve recently rewatched key scenes from series one and it struck me how smart, how emotionally charged it was. Series three still had the same great cast and come to the actual reveal, a well structured ‘twist’, yet it didn’t have any of the backbone, It became too soapy.

Till the end the socially conscious, this is all about men and misogyny, story worked, providing a bitter final reveal. Yet by then, we had wasted far much too time flitting back and forth between ex-husbands and co-workers, only for Trish to take back her ex in the end in a move that rendered it all a bit suspect.

It was a damned shame for a show that started exceptionally strong this series and spent far too much time giving into the whodunnit aspect that the viewers couldn’t help but ask for. Personally, I wanted more of that nuance and I don’t think the show was better off for not having it.

 

By using Yahoo you agree that Yahoo and partners may use Cookies for personalisation and other purposes