MovieChat Forums > Cracker (1993) Discussion > I've hard to re-evauluate....

I've hard to re-evauluate....

posted 18 years ago by one-fine-day
32 replies | jump to latest

I recently purchased the box-set for this show having been a fan when it originally aired on television.

I think I was around 14 or so and loved it.

However...

Either time has not been kind to the show or I have changed. Its not a problem with the writing and acting. In particular, McGovern has a knack for dialogue which really gets to grips with the psyche of each character. You just have to think of some of Fitz's interrogations (eg. To Say I Love You) to observe how the scripts really get under the skin of the characters.

I think the problem is with the concept, which I could overlook when I was younger (or didn't recognise) but which I can't now. The fact is that investigations are just not handled in the way Cracker depicts them. It is too removed from accurate police work to be taken seriously. Many might argue that this is not important - the show is simply about the way a criminal psychologist ruthlessly deconstructs the mindset behind criminals in the context of this show.

For me this doesn't work as the flaws in the procedural aspect of the show undermine it to render the rest implausible.

I feel a little disappointed as the box-set was very expensive and I can't enjoy it anymore.

Any thoughts...

[–] vickiethevampireslayer 18 years ago

Sell the boxset on ebay?

Olaf: "Your logic is insane and happenstance, like that of a troll".

[–] one-fine-day 18 years ago

Yeah that's what I've done and I recouped all the money which was good... :)

[–] vickiethevampireslayer 18 years ago

Olaf: "Your logic is insane and happenstance, like that of a troll".

[–] crchadwick 18 years ago

I don't see why you shouldn't be able to enjoy it any more. Just ignore the elements that you think are unrealistic and concentrate on the fantastic acting and writing. Although if you've sold the box-set, then it's a little too late...

Of course they've brought forth juniper berries, they're juniper bushes!

[–] jrv-3 18 years ago

I think it IS the writing however

The series is at heart overtly melodramatic, over the top and even comic book like.

This is probabky fine the first time one watches the series (though even on first viewing it soon palled for me)

Upon repeated viewings however, the sheer ludicrousness and extreme attempts to shock begin to look a little childish

[–] McQueen1980 18 years ago

its still an awesome show and is repeated now and then on the satellites so no point in buying it ...akin to buying the boxset of Friends..pointless as it always on E4

[–] soupisgoodfood 16 years ago

Maybe you are trying to get the wrong thing out of it? It was never really supposed to be an accurate police drama.

[–] rebeccanokes 13 years ago

The problem with McGovern's writing is that it's very OTT.

He's a very emotional writer, therefore aggression, hate, anger, torment, upset are his forte, although some of his dialogue appears too clever and far-fetched.

There are recurring themes that he appears to be obsessed with such as Catholicism, Homosexuality and coming from Liverpool.

Cracker in the main was an excellent drama at the time for it's shock factor and no-holds-barred approach. On subsequent viewings it fails to deliver on many fronts.

Sometimes subtlety can do wonders!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] panaboydean 17 years ago

I am an American and a lot of what Fitz does in interrogations isn't morally "right" or legal, but that is a lot of the fun of "Cracker". Here, there would be a lawyer present, a solicitor, and there is no way Fitz would be allowed to entrap a "suspect", and if he did, the testimony wouldn't be allowed in court, you really can't testify against yourself.

But, as you put it, "the show is simply about the way a criminal psychologist ruthlessly deconstructs the mindset behind criminals in the context of this show", but the way he does that is also about Fitz, and we learn about him as we learn about the "perps". He is a very flawed individual, seriously overweight, a gambling addict, an alcoholic, a cigarette smoker, an adulterer--when he looks deeply into the soul of a criminal we know he can do this because he also sees deeply into his own psyche, it is as much about him as it is about the criminal.

"Cracker" is a character-based show that also has great stories, and Fitz isn't the only character who is human and flawed and interesting, this is great writing, great acting, great everything.

I like to think that, in a "real" world, Fitz gets to the truth and the "bad guy" has learned his/her lesson and is the better for it.

"columnated ruins domino"--"surf's up".

[–] panda-2182 17 years ago

I agree, what a lot of Fitz does is legally and psychologically incorrect, and when I attend University, one of the lectures we had, which was about Forensic psychology, had a picture of Cracker with a big red cross through it, to indicate that Cracker wasn't realistic. I can, however, still watch Cracker and I just distance myself from the unrealistic aspects of it. I did have it on DVD, but ended up selling it anyway, mainly because I tended not to re-watch the episodes, plus I quite like watching DVDs as I'm eating etc, but I ended up having to 'psych myself up' to watch some episodes because they were so dark and difficult to watch. So it wasn't really pleasurable watching them any more..

[–] panaboydean 17 years ago

Good to hear from you, panda. I wish this message board was a little more lively. I love Cracker!

"columnated ruins domino"--"surf's up".

[–] chiz95 17 years ago

Fitz was actually based on a real criminal psychologist from Edinburgh (my brothers shared a flat with the man's son). A lot of the scenes in Cracker, and the criminal cases were based in or around fact. So to say he's unrealistic is wrong. McGovern obviously used artistic licence but there are certainly people like Fitz who are able to use the same principles and techniques to solve crimes.

[–] panda-2182 17 years ago

But things like him questioning the suspect in a police interview, isn't legal and wouldn't stand up in court.

[–] Xerces88 16 years ago

Watch it as a character-study not a fkn procedural. Ew.

[–] pablo-taylor 16 years ago

Exactly; it wasn't intended as a police procedural, so don't treat it as one.

[–] badabingblyth 16 years ago

maybe it isn't accurate.........but what compelling drama, coltrane is awesome but so are the "supporting" cast, especially some of the bad guys. when were you ever so repulsed by the "hero" in a tv drama but still wanted him to be right.this is top drawer television made by grown ups.

[–] livinggeek 16 years ago

Cracker was pretty unrealistic. How are we supposed to believe that Hagrid is leading a double life as a psychologist in mid 1990's england? Seriously this show may have it's share of inaccuracies but they don't compare to that totally screwed up Ghostbusters. I remember laughing at the jokes as a kid and now I watch it and all I think about is how there is no way they are catching ghosts in a trap that small.

[–] Arseweb 13 years ago

Ha ha, love it. Reminds me of my father's reaction to Independence Day.
He thought the idea that the president and crop-sprayer would become
experts at flying those jet fighters so quickly was a bit too unrealistic.

[–] threeoranges 16 years ago

I have to agree with you: it's a series with an adolescent outlook, and this involves

- a protagonist with nearly super-human powers of insight (the "comic book" element discussed on this thread)
- a protagonist adept at merciless put-downs and WHO GETS AWAY WITH IT amongst his peer group
- a protagonist with an unhappy home life
- a protagonist who, despite outward appearances, is so desirable that highly attractive women chase after him

Add all that, plus the undoubted wit, and you have a winner!

I would venture to suggest that HOUSE M.D. works on similar lines - House may not have two women fighting over him like Fitz does, but everything else is there!

[–] soupisgoodfood 16 years ago

I think if it really had an adolescent outlook as opposed to the protagonist having adolescent-like problems, you wouldn't see the problems the protagonist has in his life. Same goes for House. I originally thought that House was a bit adolescent, but changed my mind when it became apparent that the writer tries to make sure that the audience knows that the protagonist has issues that he's avoiding, despite his success in other areas. And I don't think either has unrealistic powers of insight, BTW.

[–] threeoranges 16 years ago

I don't know: superheroes and other such adolescent fantasy-fulfilment figures often have huge stores of angst to go with their superpowers. Superman was an orphan, the last survivor of a dead planet, and is in a will-they-won't-they relationship with Lois Lane; Spiderman unwittingly caused the death of his uncle through irresponsibility and is in a WTWT relationship with Mary-Jane; Batman's parents were murdered by a criminal and he's in a WTWT relationship with Robin... OK, the last one was a joke. But you see where I'm coming from. Even if the adolescent hero screws things up in their personal lives, they can always take refuge in the idea that they're

1) Under so much pressure from having to save others
2) So special/uber-intelligent that people don't understand them

Both Fitz and House also display the tell-tale breaking of taboos and the gratuitous insulting of all the "little people" around them. Adolescents LOVE that - it's what they wish they could get away with!

I still say Fitz's powers of insight are pretty extraordinary - just from the wounds on a body and no back-up forensic he can say things like "There are two of them, a man and a woman, the woman struck first and the man finished off the victim to protect her..."

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] threeoranges 15 years ago

No, they DON'T do what Fitz does "in real life"!

Real police psychologists wait for the forensic reports, trauma injuries etc. before they come up with their theories of what happened and why. Fitz comes out with this stuff RIGHT THERE AT THE CRIME SCENE after a quick look at the bodies!

See the difference?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ohsoso 15 years ago

Of course this is not entirely accurate, if it was it would be a doccumentary and not a fictional drama.

If it was strictly true to life it would be slow, very slow, rather dull and the police would 'not get their man'.

Prime suspect was great too. realistic? Nah! Good drama? Yeah!

[–] kathmaxwell828586 15 years ago

Prime Suspect was a bit more realistic than Cracker though.

[–] panda-2182 15 years ago

It depends on what aspect of the crime or indeed the crime, is being focused on, I've found through my own academic experience, that forensic psychologists take a more theoretical viewpoint, and look at the physical aspects of the case and apply it to theories. My undergraduate lecturer that headed up the forensic psychology module, worked with West Midlands police in solving burglaries using theories of geographical profiling. I think this is more the approach used than something quite Freudian in terms of finding offenders or offering reasons why offenders commit crimes.

I don't think criminal psychologists are allowed in interview rooms, as it would make any evidence given during that time inadmissable, but I know psychologists work with police on their interviewing techniques. I don't know when PACE was put in place, but I'm pretty certain it was before the 1990s, and it was really the late '80s and the '90s when measures such as the taping of interviews, responsible adults needed/used for vulnerable and child/young adult suspects it being a right to be allowed access to legal advice etc were put in place.

I agree, Prime Suspect is more realistic portrayal of the police service, consideration of PACE (giving breaks to a suspect when interviewed, for example) is included, I even noticed that when going for a job with the police, (albeit some years after Prime Suspect had aired) how much the CID in Prime Suspect dressed in a similar way to the real CID I saw when going for the job.

Edit: Wikipedia tells me that, 1984 was when PACE came into force.

[–] fanaticita 11 years ago

I'm watching the Cracker series for the second time, and for some reason I'm finding it much more disturbing that I did the first time round. Maybe I'm just more sensitive now or maybe I'm seeing the flaws in Fitz that I didn't see before. To Say I Love You and the episode with the guy who stutters did me in completely. Fitz comes off as an expert in reading people, and interrogates them so fiercely that it is scary, especially the innocent people. I think he is a veeeery angry man and takes his vengence out on the people he is supposed to be questioning. You can see the anger seething in him. Not good. He's destructive in more than his bad habits of gambling and drinking. I'm sorry but I think I need to watch something a little lighter. .. like Prime Suspect. .. yeah that's lighter compared to Cracker. Don't get me wrong. . .I love the series Cracker but it's wearing me down. Gives me nightmares. ...and that's not good.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DeadPersephone 11 years ago

This is how you do melodrama as a legit genre. I love the writing in this.

[–] joebuck3 9 years ago

Can't really argue with the original post. The series lost a bit of its brilliance for me too when I bought the box-set and rewatched it. Fitz is Columbo like in his brilliance (and unlike Peter Falk's performance, Robbie's portrayal of Fitz as a narcissistic arse renders the character quite annoying after a while) and there's certainly a lot of melodrama.

...but, having said that, I still really like it, even if its lost some of that first-time 'wow' factor. Coltrane is fantastic, though the character is very annoying, and when you look past him there's the great performances of Sommerville and Cranitch whose characters aren't as OTT. I also still love the portrayals of the villians in most of the stories. For all its faults, the majority of its competitors in intense, psychological British police drama don't come close to matching it, IMO.