Confessions of a Broadchurch latecomer: do I really need to go back to the start?
|
Version 0 of 1. So here is my dilemma, and I am going to be frank about it. At the time of writing, I have watched 1.197 episodes of Broadchurch. I have watched the whole of the first episode of series two, and I have watched approximately 11 very confusing but quite interesting minutes of the final episode of series one. Here’s the problem: should I stay or should I go? When is it too late to catch up on a televisual phenomenon? Should I keep watching the show as it is broadcast now, regardless of the fact that I have not seen series one and will possibly misunderstand many details, but will at least be able to join in with current conversations? Or should I wait until I have seen series one, bearing in mind that I’m unlikely to do that? I don’t have time to watch series one and then start catching up on series two. It was, admittedly, possibly a mistake to watch a fragment of the final episode like some kind of tragic Johnny-come-lately. But isn’t it hugely tempting when a show becomes the thing everyone is talking about? Even in my limited experience, Broadchurch seemed very good. But it was as if everyone was already doing the washing-up at the party as I was just cranking up the stereo. Now the party is back on. Do I just offer round the cheese-and-pineapple sticks as if I had been here all along? Of course, there are lots of options for the late catch-up viewer. You can use the magic of Google, plus Wikipedia, Amazon reviews and blogs to try to figure out what happened in an ineffectual “as good as seen it” kind of way. But, ultimately, we all know this is a cheat, even if this method worked well enough for me to understand 79% of the EastEnders Christmas episode, having not watched it for nine years. (Where was Peggy Mitchell?) On the plus side, half-understood Broadchurch is quite entertaining, possibly even more entertaining than if you had the full picture. I understand that Joe Miller (Matthew Gravelle) is the killer – or is he? – because he has confessed. And I have some half-baked idea (possibly from my 11 minutes viewing of the first series) that he committed the murder to thwart his own paedophilic inclinations. From the opening episode of series two, I understand that detective inspector Hardy (David Tennant) has some psychological and emotional difficulties (and an unexplained medical condition?), possibly as a result of the case he was on before he came to Broadchurch. And I understand that detective sergeant Miller (Olivia Colman) was married to Joe. What I don’t understand is who DI Miller’s children are (there are two children?) or whether they are actually Joe’s children, or from a previous marriage, or a combination of both. And I don’t know how DI Miller feels about the fact that her children were living with a murderer (their dad/stepdad?). None of which stopped me from enjoying last week’s episode, though. I wonder if writer Chris Chibnall partly created the series this way: it is designed to be edge-of-your-seat stuff regardless of whether you have watched from the beginning or are a wide-eyed latecomer. There are enough details and callbacks to appeal to the regulars, but enough new information to keep the newbies up to date. That’s how it seems to me, anyway. Still, I have the nagging feeling that I am missing something. Something that only another seven hours of screen-watching would solve. Shall I just find those seven hours? Or shall I forge on? Incidentally, if I do forge on and face no serious negative effects, I may finally take up listening to The Archers (17,560 episodes missed over the course of 63 years). So, there’s a lot riding on this. |