S02.E03: Episode 3

[staveDarsky]

She didn't touch Joe until he asked to see Tom. Then she lost it.

[Pattycake2]

 

Tom, who is similar in age to Danny,

 

Yes, that is what I thought.  But didn't someone say that Ellie's oldest was sixteen in episode 3?  Did I totally imagine that?  Maybe I did.  Ack.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Pattycake2

[staveDarsky]

Ellie said he was 13 while she was on the stand. He should have been 12, but I'm sure they altered it to account for Adam Wilson's growth spurt.

The actor is 15 or 16 now based on a video interview I saw from a few years ago.

Edited March 25, 2015 by staveDarsky

[Catherinewriter]

God, Olivia Coleman is a treasure.

 

Speaking of scenery, does anyone know where the show is filmed. Those incredible cliffs are both sublime and threatening.

 

 

[Kathira]

The outdoor locations for the show are filmed on the southern coast of England, on the Channel between England and France. I think town nearest to where they film the cliffs is West Bay. If you Google "Jurassic Coast" you'll find lots of great pictures and information. And yes, Olivia Colman is amazing. She and David Tennant together are giving a master class in acting.

[Llywela]

Speaking of scenery, does anyone know where the show is filmed. Those incredible cliffs are both sublime and threatening.

Dorset.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Llywela

[archer1267]

We know she was a distraught and angry wife, but a defense attorney must defend her client and the avenue of police brutality is not a forbidden line of questioning.

 

 

Oh, I understand all that. I'm not saying that Ellie shouldn't answer for her actions. But you can still care about someone and hate what they did, which is why it saddens me to see so little compassion for Ellie among the people in Broadchurch. (On a side note, each time I've seen a "Hinterland" episode I've felt the same emotions when the killer is revealed at the end...you know that they need to face the consequences for their crime, but there's still a sadness there because you can kind of see what motivated them to do what they did. It's not the satisfaction of seeing an evil person finally face the music. That's how I feel when I watch what Ellie's going through.)

 

I'm not expecting the defense to take pity on her, but the people she grew up with, the people she's known for ages. The way she brought back gifts for everyone when she came back from vacation suggests that she was a well-liked, caring person. I'd have expected more torn emotions, like "Poor Ellie Miller...she needs to answer for what she did but God knows what I'd have done in her shoes. Joe would be lucky to be alive if that were my husband!" I wouldn't expect people to still include her in their social gatherings, or to be dropping off casseroles - just to have some pity for her situation and to acknowledge how impossible it all is.

Edited March 25, 2015 by archer1267

[Eozostrodon]

Since Chibnall wrote a whole bunch of L&O:UK eps, you would think he'd be better on the ball re: the courtroom stuff. (Heaven knows my JD from Jack McCoy University never leads me astray!)

 

It's just baffling.

Tbf having written for L&O UK isn't really a massive vote of confidence so far as being able to follow (or remotely caring about) correct legal procedure goes.

 

 

David Tennant just needs to growl a few times per episodes and I'm all in.  Ownage.  Especially with his real accent.  I think that's why Gracepoint disturbed me so much.  David without some sort of accent is unappealing to me.  Plus he seemed very bored.  I get he did it for the money and fine, he has a mortgage, but he really had no energy in the American version at all.  Such an odd thing to see.  Have other shows ever done that before?  Transplanted the lead actor of a show and replicated it exactly?  I find it baffling they thought it was a good idea.

He didn't do it for the money. If he came across as bored or not trying, that's a real shame, because he worked incredibly hard and was so enthusiastic.

[lucindabelle]

I hated the UK version of law and order so at explains a lot really.

[Catherinewriter]

Kathira, thanks, I'll look it up. Just incredible land formation.

 

And all the green expanses, I assume nearby? 

[MaryPatShelby]

What it seems to come down to is this: Is the trial writing horrible (and it certainly seems as if it is), or do we just not understand the English trial system? We are looking for discovery, objections, and redirect (I would certainly have expected Jocelyn to shoot down the whole "affair" on redirect, for heaven's sake), but maybe those aren't part of the English system. As it stands, I hope I'm never on trial in England!!

For some reason, I like Mark. I don't like his behaviors, and question his decisions, but for some reason every time he's on screen I see an 18-year-old father who maybe had a hard time learning to be an adult.  This tragedy hasn't helped him find his way at all.

It is possible to be named just Beth, and for it not to be short for Elizabeth. Maybe she was named Beth in an homage to her mom, but not necessarily named after her.

[Llywela]

What it seems to come down to is this: Is the trial writing horrible (and it certainly seems as if it is), or do we just not understand the English trial system? We are looking for discovery, objections, and redirect (I would certainly have expected Jocelyn to shoot down the whole "affair" on redirect, for heaven's sake), but maybe those aren't part of the English system. As it stands, I hope I'm never on trial in England!!

Season two came under heavy criticism in the UK for its poor portrayal of the criminal justice and trial system - actual court procedure got thrown under a bus in the name of drama. Broadchurch is a story about people and their baggage, rather than an accurate court/police procedural.

[limecoke]

Well, if the courtroom scenes are representative of the British judicial system, I would truly hate to be accused of a crime there.  Apparently, the attorneys/barristers/whatever can make any wild accusation with no evidence or relevance whatsoever and everyone in the courtroom gasps at once and instantly believes the accusation.  The opposing attorney remains silent and the judge just sits there.  Right.  I've watched every episode of Law and Order UK and never saw this kind of nonsense.

 

Add me to the list of viewers who loved Original Broadchurch but is just not buying what's going on in season two.  

Edited March 31, 2015 by limecoke

[staveDarsky]

Well it seems outlandish until you know someone who failed to get justice in a court case thanks to a high powered lawyer on the opposing side making exaggerated claims. It happened to a friend of mine over a property line dispute with her neighbours. You think those lawyers involved will act respectfully and effectively, but they don't.

 

I don't have a direct reason for why Chris Chibnall has created the character of Jocelyn and then made her so ineffective aside from the parallel to Alec Hardy. Both had wonderful track records in their careers (pre-retirement for Jocelyn and pre-Sandbrook for Hardy). Both are or appear to be ailing from something that's hampering their effectiveness. Both are facing very strong opposition -- Jocelyn in the form of Sharon Bishop; Hardy in the form of Claire shifting stories in the Sandbrook case. Yes, the writing within the presentation of the court case could be better. But I think the writer was going for more than just a linear story with the court case.

[lucindabelle]

I hate the excuse, "this is not a documentary," for glaring errors in the world-building. You ahve to tell the story within a set of given circumstances. If "Broadchurch" can't tell its story within the circumstances of the actual court system, it needs to find a different way to tell the story.

 

What you don't do is fudge on the court system. I don't like that, anymore than I'd like seeing a visitor to NYC in 2015 depicted as using a token, or Jews going to church on Sunday. Get it right, show.

[MDKNIGHT]

I'm just catching up on the episodes shown in the US so far. I can believe SOME of the legal shinanigans since the Brit system isn't exactly like the US but I'm sure since so many have complained that Broadchurch is woefully inaccurate. One area that gives me hope OTOH is that IIRC the Brit system means you don't have to prove guilt "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" like in the US. A "Preponderance of Evidence" is enough so THEORETICALLY it should be easier to convict someone in the UK than in the US. Of course the writers could throw that out the window and have Joe acquitted even if they found film evidence of Joe performing the crime. It is obvious they are more interested in the drama in the interactions than in procedure.

Is there somewhere we can discuss speculation without spoilers? I have a theory about Claire that I don't think fits in any specific episode thread.

[smorbie]

On 3/31/2015 at 5:04 PM, staveDarsky said:

I don't have a direct reason for why Chris Chibnall has created the character of Jocelyn and then made her so ineffective

It may have simply been bad screen writing, but I think it was to show the dignity of the way law used to be practiced, represented by Jocelyn, contrasted against the circus that trials have become in the last 25 years or so, represented by the big-headed defense shrew.

[Roseanna]

On ‎20‎.‎1‎.‎2015 at 2:30 AM, Automne said:

But I think I hate the defense barrister more. What the everloving fuck was that? How is the judge allowing character assassination with absolutely no basis? Ellie went to talk with her detective partner on the case that was just solved and the person who was now pretty much her only friend in the world. Ooooh, how scandalous! Yeah, she's really in the mood to fuck a guy when her husband was just revealed to have killed a kid he was grooming to molest in a little hotel where the room barriers are so thin that a guest called in a noise complaint when Hardy collapsed and other guests called in noise complaints on the defense lawyer herself for talking too loud.

 

On ‎20‎.‎1‎.‎2015 at 5:00 AM, Lokiberry said:

I don't understand how anyone could take seriously the idea that Ellie would destroy her career, make it so she was ashamed to show her face in town, drive away all of her friends, and of course, ruin her children's lives, just to get her husband out of the way so she could boink Hardy and his bad heart in peace? Don't they have divorce in England (rhetorical question)? Why didn't the prosecutor stand her ass up and point some of this out?

Also, if Hardy and Ellie had been smart enough to frame Joe, they certainly would have been smart enough not to meet alone in the hotel room just after he was imprisoned.

On ‎20‎.‎1‎.‎2015 at 7:37 AM, staveDarsky said:

The affair accusation is going to backfire when Hardy's medical records are brought into court. considering he collapsed just a couple of days before Joe's arrest as he was chasing Joe/the suspect from the cliff top cottage, it's all going to be laughable.  There's enough documentation on it between the hospital & the police discharge papers.

That.

On ‎20‎.‎3‎.‎2015 at 8:21 PM, lakin1013 said:

As I have read all the posts so far, I am surprised to find all so negative.  Regarding the court, we are seeing exactly what the two lawyers told us we would see.  Jocelyn said the case would be built brick by brick, fact by fact, and so she does not respond to every gust of wind.  

But that's just what Jocelyn didn't do. In order to build her case, she should have proven that Sharon's wild theories were false and that the evidence supported Joe's guilt. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎20‎.‎3‎.‎2015 at 11:37 PM, Wordsworth said:

And his defense attorney, at least in the US, would be obligated to defend him to the best of her ability.  (In the US, anything less could result in him getting his conviction thrown out and given a new trial for lack of adequate representation).  This is why Sharon has to cast doubt on the character and testimony of everyone else.  She must convince the jury that Joe was not the only person who could have committed this crime and, if she can convince them of that, they may acquit him.

But character assassination of wittnesses and accusation againts others is not needed to help the client.

I remember a real case where a man was acquitted by the Highest Court for murdering his wife whose body was found molded in the furnace. Alhough the couple had lived alone and nobody else could have molded the furnade without his notice, it was enough that it was possible.  

In this case, it would have been enough for a good defence lawyer to concentrate in mitigations: that the killing wasn't planned and that it was (relatively) quick whereas the prosecutor would stress on aggravating circumstances that the offer was a child who had no ability to defend himself.