I watched this show last night, and woke up feeling so annoyed about the utter contempt for the intelligence of viewers that I'm moved to write this review. As other reviews have noted, the acting and tension elements are good, which makes it all the more noticeable that the writing is so woefully deficient.
Some genres don't depend on credible authenticity, but the legal thriller is not one of them. The Escape Artist asks the viewer to believe constantly in the implausible and impossible; it lacks even the semblance of internal consistency. I'm not talking about simply technical errors, but about constant gaffes on critical plot elements:
1. That a murder charge in a case rife with "serial killer" implications would be completely set aside by procedural error, rather than result in a mistrial and new proceedings.
2. That a high profile case would be assigned for prosecution to the same chambers where the victim's husband works?? Yes, barristers pride themselves on impartiality, but seriously, why would anyone take the chance of obvious conflict of interest (and the potential blowback on careers; there may be a press embargo during the case but I can't imagine this would be ignored by them forever). I'm a former defense attorney in the U.S., and granted we have a different system, but surely the Crown Prosecution Service pays more attention to such things than this would indicate?
Even if we accept this highly unlikely allocation of the prosecution, we are then asked to believe that the firm is assigning their most incompetent junior to the case because "the others are too busy." Oh, right. Rather than reassign one of their other cases, they're going to go with this guy on the absolutely most serious and sensational crime they're ever likely to handle.
3. That the young son, known to be present during the murder, would not be handled by someone experienced in child psychology, therapy etc, rather than just have his father barking at him, "Sure you didn't see anything?" Again, any legal system has errors and sloppiness, but we're asked to believe time and time again that it's happening in the most high profile kind of case?
There are also less plot-driven errors: why is Tara out to get Will? If it's professional jealousy, the background has not been established. (Go watch Silk for a primer in how to do this the right way.) Is she worried about the firm's reputation? Why not tell them to be more careful?
And Maggie knows she's had a home invasion, apparently on two occasions, but sees no need to involve the police? She's representing a guy with SOCIOPATH SERIAL KILLER written all over him in mile high letters, she knows he may well have killed the wife of his last attorney, and now it looks like he's broken into her house and she's basically so okay with this, she only makes a brief phone call to a colleague? Really?
Even insignificant things were botched. What happens to the family dog? he's present at the cottage when Kate is killed, but unhurt (killer apparently unhampered by presence of dog, neighbors not alerted by any barking, etc.) and then he completely disappears. Let's see, the father thought it was a good idea to get rid of the last remaining continuity and comfort for the kid? Feeble, just feeble.
I expect far better than this from Masterpiece. Don't waste such a good cast on such a train wreck of a script next time.
Some genres don't depend on credible authenticity, but the legal thriller is not one of them. The Escape Artist asks the viewer to believe constantly in the implausible and impossible; it lacks even the semblance of internal consistency. I'm not talking about simply technical errors, but about constant gaffes on critical plot elements:
1. That a murder charge in a case rife with "serial killer" implications would be completely set aside by procedural error, rather than result in a mistrial and new proceedings.
2. That a high profile case would be assigned for prosecution to the same chambers where the victim's husband works?? Yes, barristers pride themselves on impartiality, but seriously, why would anyone take the chance of obvious conflict of interest (and the potential blowback on careers; there may be a press embargo during the case but I can't imagine this would be ignored by them forever). I'm a former defense attorney in the U.S., and granted we have a different system, but surely the Crown Prosecution Service pays more attention to such things than this would indicate?
Even if we accept this highly unlikely allocation of the prosecution, we are then asked to believe that the firm is assigning their most incompetent junior to the case because "the others are too busy." Oh, right. Rather than reassign one of their other cases, they're going to go with this guy on the absolutely most serious and sensational crime they're ever likely to handle.
3. That the young son, known to be present during the murder, would not be handled by someone experienced in child psychology, therapy etc, rather than just have his father barking at him, "Sure you didn't see anything?" Again, any legal system has errors and sloppiness, but we're asked to believe time and time again that it's happening in the most high profile kind of case?
There are also less plot-driven errors: why is Tara out to get Will? If it's professional jealousy, the background has not been established. (Go watch Silk for a primer in how to do this the right way.) Is she worried about the firm's reputation? Why not tell them to be more careful?
And Maggie knows she's had a home invasion, apparently on two occasions, but sees no need to involve the police? She's representing a guy with SOCIOPATH SERIAL KILLER written all over him in mile high letters, she knows he may well have killed the wife of his last attorney, and now it looks like he's broken into her house and she's basically so okay with this, she only makes a brief phone call to a colleague? Really?
Even insignificant things were botched. What happens to the family dog? he's present at the cottage when Kate is killed, but unhurt (killer apparently unhampered by presence of dog, neighbors not alerted by any barking, etc.) and then he completely disappears. Let's see, the father thought it was a good idea to get rid of the last remaining continuity and comfort for the kid? Feeble, just feeble.
I expect far better than this from Masterpiece. Don't waste such a good cast on such a train wreck of a script next time.