jonfrum2000
I'm surprised by the generally negative reviews for this production. Some reviewers seem to want the writers to re-write history to replicate an Agatha Christie story. The fact is, this story was based on reality, not on Christie's tropes and formulas. The fact is, sometimes crimes work out as this one did, with an unsatisfying ending. The detective doesn't call all the suspects to a meeting where he reveals his genius at deduction, or cause the suspect to reveal him/herself in dramatic fashion.I found this well acted and well written. Not great, but quite good, and well worth the watching. Maybe if Captain Hastings' grandfather had showed up for comic relief, more people would have liked it. Personally, I found the straight drama well done and satisfying.
paul2001sw-1
'The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher', a crime drama based on a true case in Victorion England, has a great cast; but falls flat. It's a mannered, gentle affair, wholly devoid of tension. Mr Witcher investigates a crime, forms suspicions in the absence of cooperation from the local police, but comes under political and popular pressure and is unable to conclude his case successfully; years later, some evidence emerges that supports his theory; but that's it. We're never given particular reason to care about the crime; and while we naturally sympathise with the protagonist, he isn't the crime's victim, and is powerless in the face of the machinations around him. Perhaps we're so used to crime dramas that are improbably dramatic that it's hard for a more naturalistic story to succeed; but it's also fair to say that Victorian England never really comes to life in this tale.
Neil Welch
The Suspicions Of Mr Whicher is based on Kate Summerscale's book of the same name. This book is not a novel: rather it is a factual (and, if truth be told, rather dry) recounting of the facts of the case and everything relating to it (including the individuals involved) based on the original documentary evidence.The film concentrates on the case and doesn't tell us very much about the backgrounds of Mr Whicher, the Kent family, detection within the English police force and how it was viewed by the public, and so on. As such it, too, is a little dry, although the drama inherent in the story is augmented by performance drama.The film may disappoint because the conclusion is somewhat perfunctory and the "what happened afterwards", delivered at length on the course of a couple of lengthy chapters in the book, is here given over the space of three or four title cards.
Tweekums
When a three-year old child is abducted from his cot and murdered in 1860 suspicion initially falls on the boy's nanny as he was in her room at the time; she however is adamant that she is innocent. When Inspector Whicher is dispatched from London to Wiltshire to take over the investigation he is inclined to believe her. His suspicion soon falls on the boy's sister Constance; the problem is he cannot find the evidence he needs and the local constabulary are less than helpful. As the case progresses Whicher becomes more and more convinced that she is guilty but the evidence that would send her to the gallows continues to elude him and on the day of the hearing to determine if Constance should stand trial it is clear that the villages are all sure of her innocence.In this day and age we are used to murder mysteries where the detectives will examine a scene and find DNA, fingerprints and tiny traces of hair before analysing them with high-tech equipment; refreshingly there is none of that here; Whicher must build a case on largely circumstantial evidence or extract a confession if he is to see the killer punished
this did lead to a rather sudden ending but as the story was based on a real case one can't really complain about its resolution. Paddy Considine put in a fine performance as Inspector Whicher and Alexandra Roach was good as his chief suspect; the sixteen-year old Constance.
AD
