|
|
Post by profquatermass on Apr 15, 2020 19:03:00 GMT
I'm pretty sure some people will change their mind when watching the third episode. I certainly did in the second half of the play...
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Apr 15, 2020 20:15:20 GMT
I had the strangest day going to see the play...there was a burst water main I think outside the theatre and we didn’t know if it was going to go ahead, so took a leap of faith and caught the train from Oxford anyway...and the matinee did happen, but delayed till 3pm. Had a front row stage seat and was called on to participate in one of the Price is Right old gameshow recreations....I was woefully bad at guessing prices. I rather enjoyed the play without being knocked out by it....but it is interesting for us theatre obsessive....Ingram & co were obsessive about the show....and that chimed with me as people sometimes can’t believe the lengths we people here go to to obtain those elusive theatre tickets!!!!!! And even the fact that we may see two plays/shows in a day. Now if that buzzer machine would have made it easier to get tickets for an amazing hot ticket show at the Donmar I would have definitely been practicing!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 15, 2020 21:10:08 GMT
Terrific television. Loved the dance sequence.
I learnt a lot more about the case, the defence was fascinating and makes a lot of sense. I also sympathise a lot with them, nobody deserves that level of public ridicule, I mean imagine every day for the rest of your life people cough at you, which will presumably be exacerbated for them now after this.
That said I still think they are without doubt guilty!
|
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 15, 2020 21:17:32 GMT
Excellent television from what was a tremendously good play. I went to see this because I'd enjoyed James Graham's other plays but must admit I didn't find the theme interesting. But then I saw the play and I realised it was not about a game show but about much, much more.
ITV have made this into a gem but I can't help feeling sorry for the Ingrams. In a civil case I would probably have found them guilty on the balance of probabilities but beyond reasonable doubt? No, that wasn't proved. Sorry to say the jury didn't have a clue.
And this is the THIRD time ITV makes money at the Ingrams' expense!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by justfran on Apr 15, 2020 21:36:59 GMT
Terrific television. Loved the dance sequence. I learnt a lot more about the case, the defence was fascinating and makes a lot of sense. I also sympathise a lot with them, nobody deserves that level of public ridicule, I mean imagine every day for the rest of your life people cough at you, which will presumably be exacerbated for them now after this. That said I still think they are without doubt guilty! Totally agree with you! Episode 3 was yet another great hour of drama. It was interesting to hear the defence and the way it makes you look at what you have already decided yourself. Personally I do think they were guilty. The verdict was given, they were fined, let them move on with their lives - I don’t agree in any cases with “trial by media” and it would have been worse if it had happened now with social media! More drama like this please ITV. |
|
7,189 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 15, 2020 22:12:20 GMT
Excellent television from what was a tremendously good play. I went to see this because I'd enjoyed James Graham's other plays but must admit I didn't find the theme interesting. But then I saw the play and I realised it was not about a game show but about much, much more. ITV have made this into a gem but I can't help feeling sorry for the Ingrams. In a civil case I would probably have found them guilty on the balance of probabilities but beyond reasonable doubt? No, that wasn't proved. Sorry to say the jury didn't have a clue. And this is the THIRD time ITV makes money at the Ingrams' expense!!! Matthew MacFadyen portrayed Charles really well, I do think Diana Ingram as played as Sian Clifford did not come across well and I wonder if that was deliberate? |
|
2,411 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Apr 15, 2020 22:17:31 GMT
Yes great television . As far as evidence goes whether they did it or not, I am very surprised they were found guilty. In my view there was not enough to say beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|
460 posts
|
Post by pianowithsam on Apr 15, 2020 23:53:55 GMT
A beyond fascinating 3 days I've had watching this.
Really hope the tour is re-scheduled at some point. I'm sure I'm not the only one that would love to see the play now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Apr 16, 2020 8:11:13 GMT
First episode great tv but diminishing interest as it went on. The fantasy sequence was pure padding. Still worth it though.
Martin (sic) Sheen (I though he was supposed to be one of the nice thesp's?) Didn't give us Tarrant's legendary charm. Played him as just another oleaginous TV host. The famously astringent journalist Lynn Barber described meeting him as being as joyous as being licked by a box of puppies. Also missed a trick by not using the famous pause.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Apr 16, 2020 8:56:08 GMT
{Spoiler - click to view}
Did I miss something?
For the prosecution case to make sense we had to accept that by coincidence at the end of a disastrous first day Tarrant said come back tomorrow and read out the names of the next bunch of FFF contestants, one of whom was in the book the brother had given the wife. Without that no fraud? So the fraud was not planned, just dreamt up after a disastrous first day?
It seems odd that the defence apparently didn't mention the unlikeliness of this? |
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Apr 16, 2020 9:49:28 GMT
Definitely not sure about the dance number, but this was excellent television, with superb performances all round. Wouldn't you just want Helen McCory to defend you.
|
|
460 posts
|
Post by pianowithsam on Apr 16, 2020 11:04:18 GMT
Definitely not sure about the dance number, but this was excellent television, with superb performances all round. Wouldn't you just want Helen McCory to defend you. I loved the musical sequence personally. Thought it definitely added to it. |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Apr 16, 2020 21:46:58 GMT
I wonder if Ink could be given a similar treatment on the small screen? I think it's a story that would attract similar interest!
|
|
7,189 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 16, 2020 22:14:14 GMT
I wonder if Ink could be given a similar treatment on the small screen? I think it's a story that would attract similar interest! It’s in development as a film, I think it’d be a slightly harder sell than Quiz. |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Apr 16, 2020 22:35:22 GMT
I wonder if Ink could be given a similar treatment on the small screen? I think it's a story that would attract similar interest! It’s in development as a film, I think it’d be a slightly harder sell than Quiz. Oh is it??? That's interesting! |
|
4,805 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 17, 2020 6:18:15 GMT
Started this last night with the intention to just watch the first episode and continue today. We were up until past midnight! Much better than the stage play in my eyes, which I found slightly messy. This was gripping and very well done!
|
|
8,160 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Apr 17, 2020 6:35:24 GMT
As Mark mentions above I also started watching it yesterday and was just going to watch one episode and the rest over the weekend. Ended up watching the lot in 1 go.
What a great programme with equal amounts of drama and comedy. So well acted.
Loved it.
|
|
879 posts
|
Post by daisy24601 on Apr 17, 2020 9:55:56 GMT
Really enjoyed the programme. I thought they made the couple far too innocent though. Almost like they were the victims and the TV people were the bad guys.
|
|
8,160 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Apr 17, 2020 10:18:51 GMT
Might have got this completely wrong but I think a friend told me that at the NT production the audience voted as to whether they were guilty or innocent. Can anyone confirm if that is true?
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 17, 2020 10:50:27 GMT
Really enjoyed the programme. I thought they made the couple far too innocent though. Almost like they were the victims and the TV people were the bad guys. I think that was the idea. For twenty years they've been vilified and the public never heard the defence case. That said I still think they're 100% guilty but it was interesting to hear the other side. Also what the drama didn't show you was the Major's subsequent conviction for insurance fraud. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Apr 17, 2020 11:12:22 GMT
Might have got this completely wrong but I think a friend told me that at the NT production the audience voted as to whether they were guilty or innocent. Can anyone confirm if that is true? It wasn't at the NT, it was in Chichester and then the West End, and yes, the audience voted twice - once just before the interval, at the end of the recreation of the TV episode, and once at the end of the show, after the trial. I'm sure that Chichester or James Graham published some stats at the end of one of the runs, but I can't find them now. Essentially, the audience usually voted heavily for Guilty at the interval (roughly equivalent to the end of episode 2 of the TV adaptation), and a majority (albeit smaller) voted Innocent by the end of the show. There were a number of other audience interactions, a few people came up on stage to take part in the Price is Right, there was a quiz that was done during the first half and marked in the second - there was a bit more about why people were so interested in quiz shows in the stage production. Edited to add - from the Chichester thread: emsworthian - The audience at the Saturday matinee had a majority Not Guilty and a results board projected onto the of stage backdrop revealed that out of 39 performances, at all but at two performances the majority voted Not Guilty @n1david - The show I was at was the first one to find the Ingrams guilty in the run (interesting to hear it was one of only two). The cast were genuinely taken aback and while they obviously had a script to prepared them for this, it was very unexpected. On the way out, theatre staff were asking people if they’d voted guilty at the end and if so, why. I wonder if this has been part of Graham’s recalibration if the show to weigh things one way or the other. |
|
879 posts
|
Post by daisy24601 on Apr 17, 2020 14:13:08 GMT
Really enjoyed the programme. I thought they made the couple far too innocent though. Almost like they were the victims and the TV people were the bad guys. I think that was the idea. For twenty years they've been vilified and the public never heard the defence case. That said I still think they're 100% guilty but it was interesting to hear the other side. Also what the drama didn't show you was the Major's subsequent conviction for insurance fraud. I gathered that was the idea but I didn't feel it was a fair balance. In court we heard a lot more in their defence than anything against them. |
|
|
|
Post by daber on Apr 17, 2020 18:59:59 GMT
In the play performance, the audience had hand remote controls and were asked near the beginning and near the end of the play to vote on whether we thought they were guilty or innocent. At the performance I attended it was guilty on both occasion but with a reduced majority on the second vote.
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Apr 18, 2020 15:17:32 GMT
I thought there were lots of interesting things about the play/tv drama. Is it easier to think slightly unattractive people are guilty? If you are guilty of slightly cheating to get on the show does this make you likely to actually commit fraud on the show? If that’s a yes, does it mean anyone who parks on a yellow line or speeds may commit a crime? Where do we draw the line? If you find money in the street and don’t hand it in to the police are you are a bad persons? In these troubled times if you book a supermarket delivery when you aren’t shielding are you bad?
Also interesting is people believing someone is guilty and then making evidence fit....the producers were sure the Ingrams were guilty and edited the audio tape so it picked up cough noises from microphones near the coughs....in reality it wouldn’t have sounded as loud on stage....and the original tape of sound was not available...it was destroyed?
As an analogy most of us would use every trick we know to get good theatre tickets when they are out (multiple browsers anyone?) but we would never dream of not actually paying for a ticket!
I do think there was reasonable doubt and they should not have been convicted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 16:56:03 GMT
it amuses me that after a 3 hour (fictionalized) tv show we know the jury got it wrong even though they sat there listening to several weeks of evidence......
|
|
