plot holes (spoilers) - State of Play (2003) Discussion

[–] Tony Aguila 15 years ago

Right you are about the holes. I was about to start a comment about the second one, so thank you for bringing it up already.

The first hole should be simple enough to plug. Bingham seemed cocky enough to think that he did not need the bulletproof vest, as evidenced by his running into Della earlier on in the corridor. For someone in his position, you would think that he would want to remain inconspicuous and avoid attracting attention to himself like that. So his cockiness killed him. A good enough plug for that hole, easier to fix than the ones in his chest.

It was the second plot hole that bothered me most. If Collins had ordered the killing, he would not have had enough pull upstairs to order the execution of Bingham, so this is how I would explain it. George Fergus, and cohort, assumed that the killing of Sonia Baker was ordered by U-EX and took it upon themselves to clean up the mess and arranged with the police higher-ups to silence Bingham. Fergus’s connections were made obvious by the scene where he pays a visit at #10 Downing Street. That explains why the detectives involved were powerless to pursue the investigation. And not even the media was immune from pressure from upstairs, who were obviously under the government’s control.

Still can’t help feeling sorry for Dominic Foy… and Richard Seigler.

reply

[–] fuzzout987 15 years ago

As to the second plothole I thought the indication was that someone upstairs had ordered the killing of Bingham without knowing Collins was involved but knowing about U-Ex involvement in placing Sonia Baker in Collins office and had him killed to prevent a scandal from exploding, which from the ending they failed to do. I agree with the other poster Fergus had the pull to organize something like that. And the two detectives seemed too honest to be included in the killing of Bingham they were going to pursue the murder wherever it led. And on an unrelated note can anyone explain to me why the hell Hollywood is remaking this. I hope the remake bombs.

reply

[–] bulmdallas 15 years ago

What screw up perfection? Everyone was gtreat in theri roles and the script was tight. Even the music. God. hope they don't give it to Ben Affleck ! :-)

reply

[–] churchr-1 15 years ago

Wasn't he killed by a high powered rifle? I don't think a vest would have helped. I've only finished the first three episodes so far (requested it from netflix after reading about it in reviews for the new version) so I'm treading gently on the rest of this forum.
I'm still amazed at Bill Nighy as the editor. In a show filled with great actors giving great performances he still stands out.

reply

[–] Tonesta 15 years ago

OK, I just watched the whole thing (been meaning to for a while, and was eventually pushed to get round to it by the impending release of the film......), and I had exactly the same plot concern as the second point mentioned here.

But it went further than that - not only was Bingham killed in an apparent cover up (and here your explanation makes sense), but the medical records of the young black kid were also altered to make it look like he was on crack.

Now the government and U-EX would have no good motive to do this - because they would have no reason to link the two murders at the time. Cal & co. only found the link because the victim's brother pointed him that way. The only people who might have a motive were Bingham and Collins - but surely neither of them would have the power to lean on a coroner.

In general, I thought the series was wonderful - fascinating plot, great script, top notch cast all on form (especially Bill Nighy, as always). But I can't see any justification for this apparent plot hole, and for a miniseries in particular, there's no real excuse.
I realise this board isn't very well frequented, but if someone could make a convincing argument for why that plot strand make sense, it would put my mind at rest, and mean I could go back and change my 8 grade to a 10!!

reply

[–] davey_e6 15 years ago

I imagine that Cal and Co. weren't the only ones to have phone records of the black kid. And once the briefcase was handed in the police would've made the connection.

So, perhaps as others have said, the government felt that any revelations concerning the murder would feed back to them allowing a U-EX informant close to the commitee. So when they put pressure on the police to resolve the issue quickly someone felt portraying it as a drugs killing would do that.

I agree that certain things don't make much sense in the light of the final episode - but given that so much is still not perfectly clear I think we can imagine that there were other motives and forces we are not explicitly aware of.

reply

[–] Tonesta 15 years ago

But the briefcase wasn't handed in until long after the medical records had been changed (indeed until after the policeman had been shot and Della - for good reason - freaked out).
There was no reason for anyone in the government or U-EX to suspect it was anything more than a drug killing, and there was no indication that the police had linked the two deaths before Cal & co. You can't cover something up if you don't know about it!

It's bugging me because the whole series was otherwise wonderful.
But the change of the toxicology report was clearly written in there to further suggest in the viewers' (and the journalists) minds that what we have is a big conspiracy, such that when we find out that it was personal all along, it's a bigger surprise twist. To leave it dangling, with not even a hint of an explanation, or a reasonable manner for the viewer to join the dots themselves, is, I'm afraid, lazy writing.

reply

[–] davey_e6 15 years ago

The medical records weren't changed before the policeman was shot - it was only the true preliminary results that were revealed by that point.

The case was handed over in episode two - wasn't it three or four by the time the final toxicology report came out?

I'm not saying its not a problem but I'm pretty sure the case was with the police before the report was altered.

reply

[–] Tonesta 15 years ago

The second conversation with their insider at the hospital took place in episode three.
I had interpreted that conversation as meaning the toxicology report had been changed immediately (i.e. very soon after their initial conversation in episode 1). But it's possible I was wrong about that (I can't double check, Netflix already have my copy back!)
In which case I guess it would be just about possible for a crooked cop to leak the link post-case handover, and apply pressure to get the toxicology report changed after that.

Still a bit of a stretch, but at least it's possible to explain it your way - thanks!
Still think it's slightly 'convenient' writing, which requires some serious leaps of logic for the viewer, and leaves rather too many unanswered questions for a miniseries. But I'll stop worrying about it now!!!

reply

[–] davey_e6 15 years ago

I also spent some nights figuring out the story with the ending in mind - and it doesn't seem to fit perfectly as you noted.

But given that the assassin was executed by police, the toxicology report was altered and the owner of the newspaper was pressured by the government we have to assume it was them that wanted the story / case suppressed. I suppose to keep the whole thing under wraps - quite why that demanded such an involved and dramatic reponse is unclear. It makes the most sense if they were behind the murder - but oh well, the twist was nicely done.

reply

[–] bogwart-1 15 years ago

"Lazy writing."

What an extraordinarily arrogant statement. Do you have any idea of how much effort would have gone into the writing of this brilliant series? Is everything you come across in your life explained, with the i's dotted and the t's crossed? Or was your potty training so inadequate that you feel unhappy unless you are made aware of every nuance of every ambiguous situation?

We know from the spin doctor that MI5 was involved with the case. The killing of Stagg at the beginning was a potential problem for Collins, so a fairly routine and superficially plausible rationale was presented to explain his death, ie the killing of a black teenage drug pusher.

It ony came unstuck because questions would be raised if his death was considered a puzzle, so the initial tox screen was changed. This is not a government or a U-EX conspiracy, it's merely an attempt to short-circuit a potential investigation of Stagg's killing and the concomitant questions which would follow.

For you to read this as 'a big conspiracy' is lazy thinking.

Why do people always have to look for plot holes? Isn't life itself full of unresolved questions? You want perfection from TV and cinema - is that what you get from your own life?

reply

[–] edvin-6 15 years ago

1. Killing of Robert Bingham is NOT a plot hole. By the time of his death, it was known he was implicated both in Sonia Baker and Kevin Stagg deaths and police had his detailed description and picture. Government, attempting to cover-up the whole thing, could have easily "encouraged" the special police to kill Bingham on the spot, thus preventing his eventual confession and further political damage.

2. Same goes for falsifying the toxicology report of Kevin Stagg. By the time it has happened, it was well known to the police that Robert Bingham had killed both him AND Sonia Baker. Naturally, it was then desirable for the government to keep the lights off BOTH cases and the best way to do it is to depict Stagg's death as a common drug related killing, nothing worthy of special attention. It was then decided to change his toxicology report and turn him into a 100% junkie.

reply

[–] ikanboy 15 years ago

The far bigger plot hole is that after Bingham was killed, and the police knew he'd been following the MP's girlfriend, they did nothing to connect the dots. Which our intrepid journalists did in 10 seconds flat.

reply

[–] woteva23 15 years ago

I thought this series was amazing untill the last episode which has pretty much ruined my opinion of the whole series.

I recently watched Charlie Brookers Screenwipe the writers episode. In which Paul Abbot appeared I believe he said he had written State of Play with out any idea of where it was goingso he just piked up a pen and started writing.

This to me explains why this show has so many plot holes and is unable to do anything about them. Except hope the audience is so engrossed in the drama they dont even realise that the story doesnt make sense.

There are so many things wrong with the script some of which have been mentioned. I believe the cover up stretches so much furhter also. Any political pressure being put on people makes no sense, it almost works if you fill in the gaps yourself but not quite.

We have mentioned the cover up with the police and the nurse, however the pressure from newspaper doesnt make any sense either as it cannot be morrisey behind all of this as he is just a back bencher. This means that the only possible conclusion is that the goverment is covering up the murder. However the Goverment is not responsible for the murder just for currption and in fact Morrissey is responsible for the death of the girl. This is my big question if Morrissey is responsible why does he act the way he does towards ministers and spin doctors? It makes no sense. Arguments for this will use the excuse that he is trying to cover up his guilt. Yet again this does not make sense, because if he is so moralistic that he is offended by the idea of big business and the goverment spying on him why his moral's allow him to kill her, surely the best thing for him to do would be bring the story of curruption to the press. Also why does he go after the goverment when he knows hes responsible for the murder yet again it makes no sense. If he wanted to get away with it he should of taken there offer of getting a seat on the front bench.

reply

[–] tsegal-1 15 years ago

"If Morrissey is responsible why does he act the way he does towards ministers and spin doctors? "
Good question; I was wondering that too. I think it's partly humiliation at the fact that he was set up & manipulated; he says something to the effect that he was working so hard on the Energy Commission (which helped ruin his marriage, all the long hours), and he was being sabotaged, his efforts being circumvented the whole time by his superiors. He thought they were grooming him for better things, & instead he was just a poster boy to make them look good. Plus, he really believed in what he was doing, socking it to the energy companies, and he realized the government had no intention of making any real reforms; it was all a bit of a sham.
And also, in his twisted, cowardly way, he probably did convince himself that they were responsible for Sonya's death -- because they created the situation. "If they hadn't planted her, I'd never have had the affair, and then never gotten Bingham involved, and so forth... It's all their fault, really."

"Also why does he go after the goverment when he knows hes responsible for the murder yet again it makes no sense. If he wanted to get away with it he should of taken there offer of getting a seat on the front bench."

No. On the contrary, blaming them is his only chance to get away with it. Thanks to his closeness with Cal, he knows the story and the scandal's going to break. No stopping it. He CAN'T take the cabinet post; that'd make it look like he was being bought off (or in on it from the start). Instead he alligns himself with the press; becomes their number-one source. This lets him come across as basically a good bloke who got a little weak, and slept with a subordinate, but isn't guilty of corruption. Everyone will just pin Sonya's death on the government, along with everything else -- and if it ever gets sorted out, no one will blame him; wasn't he a victim after all?

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]