I'm streaming Season 1 in order and this is my first review. There are some consistencies here between episodes 1-4. The storylines are reduced to "Just the facts ma'am," as Sgt Joe Friday used to say. They take a complicated case and reduce it down to a series of clips of evidence revelations, suspect interviews, field actions, witness confrontations. The result is it seems all to fit within a day, two at the max. So far, no tedious shoe leather work or stakeouts, none of the boring but essential police work we've come to expect. Episodes are like the Cliff Notes of the real stories.
Consistency #2. It's never who you think it will be. The stories are so filled with characters - maybe like real life, maybe excessive - that provide a large group of peripheral entanglements. The detectives winnow their way through evidence and suspect accounts and witness accounts and CCTV and forensic reports to give the viewers an ongoing account of the current case status as it evolves. The trail is invariably tangled but our main protagonists muddle through with police experience, and intuition, and dumb luck. And just when the viewer thinks we know the culprit, a revelation takes us in a different direction.
Consistency #3. Those interviews down at the station are rough! The officers get away with a lot more snark and leading questions and badgering than would hold up in the States. And a lot more, "How do you explain THAT?" (bit of incriminating evidence) than any competent attorney would allow. The answer should always be, "It's your job, not mine, to explain the evidence!" BTW - the solicitors seem to be show pieces without any role other than to suggest the interviewees have counsel present. Like Vanna White turning letters only with less action and no letters. Occasionally the barrister will jot a note to show life.
Consistency #4. You cannot escape the long arm of the law. We always get our man or woman. No sense in lying to us or withholding evidence or bits of the story. We'll get you, no matter what. We usually know the answers to our questions and are just trying to catch you in a lie.
Consistency #5. There is no wrap up. No denouement to summarize and clarify for viewers at the end. If you fell asleep for that critical bit, go back and rewatch it. Fade to credits and onto the next episode.
It has a sense of superficiality. That might be a directorial artistic choice. The plot marches along at a rapid pace of inevitability. One final quibble: I'm a yank who fears missing a critical piece due to slang or my own stupidity, so I watch with subtitles. They are slightly delayed from the spoken dialog, which is distracting.
Consistency #2. It's never who you think it will be. The stories are so filled with characters - maybe like real life, maybe excessive - that provide a large group of peripheral entanglements. The detectives winnow their way through evidence and suspect accounts and witness accounts and CCTV and forensic reports to give the viewers an ongoing account of the current case status as it evolves. The trail is invariably tangled but our main protagonists muddle through with police experience, and intuition, and dumb luck. And just when the viewer thinks we know the culprit, a revelation takes us in a different direction.
Consistency #3. Those interviews down at the station are rough! The officers get away with a lot more snark and leading questions and badgering than would hold up in the States. And a lot more, "How do you explain THAT?" (bit of incriminating evidence) than any competent attorney would allow. The answer should always be, "It's your job, not mine, to explain the evidence!" BTW - the solicitors seem to be show pieces without any role other than to suggest the interviewees have counsel present. Like Vanna White turning letters only with less action and no letters. Occasionally the barrister will jot a note to show life.
Consistency #4. You cannot escape the long arm of the law. We always get our man or woman. No sense in lying to us or withholding evidence or bits of the story. We'll get you, no matter what. We usually know the answers to our questions and are just trying to catch you in a lie.
Consistency #5. There is no wrap up. No denouement to summarize and clarify for viewers at the end. If you fell asleep for that critical bit, go back and rewatch it. Fade to credits and onto the next episode.
It has a sense of superficiality. That might be a directorial artistic choice. The plot marches along at a rapid pace of inevitability. One final quibble: I'm a yank who fears missing a critical piece due to slang or my own stupidity, so I watch with subtitles. They are slightly delayed from the spoken dialog, which is distracting.
