Quiz

I tend to be always wary of things based on a true story. A mixture of fact and fiction often blurs the tedious factual parts with outlandish falsehoods to make the show more exciting as a whole. Therefore it can often be difficult to engage yourself to view it as fact as there are a large number of scenes which appear to be grandstanding for the viewers.

Despite the above, the series is actually an exciting drama with some occasional comedy moments. It's certainly worth a viewing. The acting itself appears great, however it's difficult to know how good the acting is considering we're unaware whether the actors are portraying the Ingrams directly or whether there have been things added.

The reason for the 7/10 is not due to the production, excitement or directing, it is due to the script. I am slightly perplexed as to why the script has been written to feel empathy towards Charles Ingram. Although the wife was responsible for pushing Charles, he has surprisingly been made to look the innocent party, this is despite Charles committing insurance fraud before the quiz show fraud. So why has the script been written to make us feel empathetic?

Overall the show is well worth the watch. It's exciting, gripping and interesting. Would really recommend, however most certainly take everything with a pinch of salt - it's not all fact!

This show started out engaging enough, but it deteriorated in episode 3. At least there were only 3 episodes, so it wasn't too much of a time-suck. But Michael Sheen made this worthwhile to watch. He was funny, over the top, and so cute!

The best ... or worst ... about this was Sheen's masterful portrayal of the awful Tarrant with all his smugness, witless, often embarrassing comments to and about competitors and partners and his dreadful contorted facials. He eventually made the show unwatchable for me. Well done Sheen for an accurate portrayal of this staggeringly overrated unpleasant presenter.

It's a big compliment when you feel you want another episode. Quiz does that. It engages throughout with a mostly tight story, mostly good cast and what we all love: a bit of a mystery.

The addiction to true crime dramas sets people up for this sort of story: unresolved tension, 'what if' scenarios and divided camps of 'guilty' vs 'not-guilty'.

The narrative of this production is all about the tension that is built into shows like Millionaire, and it openly then uses the same tactics for itself.

Where the show excels is that it doesn't really pick a side, it shows seemingly balanced evidence for both sides of the case.

In a nod to 'Network' it also asks us what the culture of sensationalist TV breeds - and how networks can benefit and profit from all outcomes.

The acting is largely good. Michael Sheen is outstanding as Tarrant. Matthew Macfadyen dances the fine balance of the role he plays of competent vs comical and when you rewatch the original footage you realise he got it right. Sian Clifford indistinguishable from Diana Ingram.

It has some mis-steps. The brother-in-law and one of the network executives are frantic and out of place, and the odd stray into attempts at comedy (evidence: "It's Raining Men") are oddly distracting. I wonder if they are holdovers from the theatre when you inject absurdity to give the audience a bit of a wake up in pace. We've all been there for the obvious "everyone cheer" moments, but they don't work so well on TV.

It's an eye opening programme that will leave you wanting more, just like any good drama and mystery should evoke.

Though I let it pass me by when it aired, it's appearance on the Guardian's "TV of the year" list led to me giving "Quiz" a try. Though I accept people's frustration that the series doesn't want to prescribe guilt to its famous couple, in and of itself it's in interesting insight to the levels of manipulation seemingly innocuous and trustworthy institutions can fall foul too.

When the UK television production company Celador arrive at an idea for a new gameshow, they couldn't have predicted the unprecedented success that the show would be. "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" would become an worldwide phenomenon, but with their high profile, and the considerable prize on offer, inventive groups found a way to bend the show to their advantage. Into this, Major Charles Ingram (Matthew Macfadyen) follows his wife and brother-in-law into the hotseat, but unlike them he win's the top prize. However, accusations of cheating, particularly a conspiracy with coughing members of the audience, follow soon after.

Though the story clearly gets some people enraged, if it was 100% a work of fiction then it would be judged as a slightly farfetched but truly enjoyable miniseries. The performances are good, not just from the main cast but from numerous supporting performers like Helen McCrory, Aisling Bea, Elliot Levey and Nicholas Woodeson. Macfadyen and Sian Clifford do a great job of keeping the Ingram's as slightly odd but not unlikeable, which helps sell the indecision about their guilt. Personally, I didn't like this Michael Sheen impression as much as I have done some of the others, I don't feel he caught Chris Tarrant as well as he did Brian Clough, or Tony Blair. Some aspects of the story are really fascinating, not so much the actual Ingram saga, as the levels of manipulation that the show suffered. It suggests that a small but organised group of people managed to influence who made it onto the show and abused the phone-a-friend aspect.

As mentioned, the show works very hard to provide what might be considered a balanced view, which I suppose is noble, but betrays the truth somewhat. Though the Ingram's maintain their innocence and the show presents a very strong argument for them, they were found guilty by a jury, and fairly quickly too. As a report of history, I'd accept that the show is questionable - but as entertainment I'd say just ask the audience.