Although the identity of the murderer was explained at the beginning of the first episode, there was still a cold sense of fear throughout the whole process. It's not the first time DTT has played a villain, but it's the first time I've found that his eyes can be so empty and scary. There is no possibility of adding a filter to DES because he likes DTT, because the person he played is too scary + disgusting. Sure enough, a good actor is an existence that can completely make himself invisible.
The story of DES itself has a lot of bloody or curious elements that can be tapped, but this drama is very restrained, and the angle of entry is very "positive". This kind of "positive" makes me realize how easy it is for me to subconsciously bring in the killer's perspective when watching serial killer-themed works, and even idolize the IQ or charm of these people (of course, this is not all the problem of those works. Might be my problem.. and the show reminds viewers of the other side of the murder story at all times, showing the pain of victims and their families to make one realize that investigating serial murders is not an intellectual cat-and-mouse game , the pain caused by the existence of the bad guy DES is real. Moreover, I watched the documentary and behind-the-scenes before watching the drama. I know that the screenwriter and director, including DTT, have emphasized that they do not want to show this story in a cheap manner. , "it's not about glorifying Nilsen's own egomania. It's not about feeding into this narcissism", so as viewers also remind themselves "these victims are far more important than Nilsen will ever be".
Interestingly, when DES was asked by the writer what he did to the corpse in the play, he said to the writer, you know I killed these living people. If you focus on what I did to the dead more than what I did to the living, your morals probably need a reset. It can be described as a word to wake up curiosity.
On the other hand, the show also has a bit of a socialist reasoning quality. The point is not to solve crimes, but to show the social factors that shape serial killers. The shaping here is not shaping in the sense of "social problems lead to perverted character". The appearance of "killer" can also be said to be an accidental event caused by personal problems or family factors, and has nothing to do with society. However "serial" means "one person can kill others in a row without being detected/stopped", so there must be some structural reason. The answer given by this drama is poverty + homophobia. In contrast, my previous inherent impression turned out to be that the reason why serial killers can commit serial crimes depends on IQ (again, disenchantment, in fact, largely ignores social issues.
The last episode focused on the trial. The first reaction was that it was a bit redundant. Why should he argue for him when he clearly killed more than a dozen people? The point of contention between the two parties is to judge the extent to which this person needs to be responsible for his own actions, in other words, his actions are out of free will or can't control themselves, "this tile is not free". Both the detective and the writer think he knows what he's doing and that he's not doing it right, he just doesn't care. In the end, the jury thought so too, so the charges were established.
From interrogation to trial, DES himself seems to have been fairly passive. When the police asked you what was your motive, he said I was waiting for you to tell me. The writer asked him why he chose not to plead guilty, and he said I waited for the jury to judge. This kind of behavior of surrendering the right of interpretation is very interesting, I don't know how to understand it in psychology. Perhaps it is a kind of psychological defense. You say what I am is what I am. As long as "I" can't make judgments, it can not be responsible for its own actions to a certain extent, and it is shirk responsibility. Or maybe it's just out of pure malice, after all, when talking to writers, he shows his ambition to have 100% control over his story. The trap that writers fall into is to make a bunch of plausible psychological interpretations based on his confession without knowing whether DES is telling the truth or not, and be led by his nose. So he chose to "leave it to the readers to judge", which feels like the attitude of the play.
The detective and writer's sideline from confrontation to reconciliation is also interesting. The difference between the two is that the detective is more concerned about the consequences of the case, so he is concerned about DES until the verdict. After knowing that he will not be released again, all he cares about is to continue to confirm the identity of the victim and give an explanation to the family members. And the writer wants to go a step further to discuss his causes and why he is so uncaring. In the end the detective and the writer understood each other. Although the detective is painful, the work of the writer is indeed more dangerous. After all, it is a person like DES who seems to be honest and who is always weaving/shaping/controlling reality by language. He was always alert to the trend of being led away, and finally succeeded in grasping the right to speak in the narrative.
Here are some associations:
The opening chapter talks about the economic problems of Britain under Margaret Thatcher, reminding me of the fourth season of "The Crown" that I just finished watching. Compared to the level of horror and tragicness of the show, the struggles of the characters in The Crown are just too vain to me. Maybe this is the essential reason why I am not so interested in the crown series. I really can't answer the question "Why should I care about this group of royals?" because it just doesn't resonate at all. .
After finding evidence of conviction, the defendant accidentally denied the crime in court. The plot is too reminiscent of "Small Town". . I don't know what it's like to play DTT from the detective to the dock XD.
Inspector Peter is Adam's dad! Good Omens Cast x2. The appearance is actually quite similar, but it feels completely out of play, the actors are really good. If you cross-over, Daddy Adam has seen the demon Crowley, but the DES that Detective Peter deals with is the real evil. I wonder how Crowley and Aziraphale would feel about the demons lurking in Soho.
This kind of villain who has insight into the weaknesses of human nature and likes to manipulate language as a weapon, the last time he saw it was the Demon Prince. .
View more about Des reviews
