It seemed that every “Critics’ Choice” and 7-day-guide I laid my hands on last weekend was careful to praise ITV’s returning detective drama “Vera”, inspired by the novels of British writer Ann Cleeves. Admittedly, I was skeptical; it being Sunday evening and pre-watershed, despite the rave reviews and success of the preceding series I was expecting more "Scooby Doo" than "CSI". Two hours on I was dazed, and here’s why.
![]() |
Searching the depths: Brenda Blethyn as Vera |
The show got going with a bang- well, I suppose it was more of a muted thud- with the murder of what was ostensibly a middle-aged, butter-wouldn’t-melt single parent. I was watching downstairs with a mother more absorbed in online shopping who, after the opening sequence and a fairly brutal killing scene, became as engrossed as I. It was rapidly revealed that the deceased, Jenny Lister, served as a senior social worker on the infamous “Elias Jones” case that saw a young boy murdered by his mother and a junior worker, Connie, receive widespread vilification. That Lister was compiling a book defending the much-blamed parents in such cases soon emerged, as well as hints that she would be using the book to dish dirt on a one Michael Morgan, who had escaped the public’s wrath following Elias’ death despite being as culpable as Connie. As it turned out, Morgan had had Lister’s laptop stolen to rescue his reputation and had inadvertently discovered a recent dalliance with between Lister and her teenage daughter’s boyfriend, Simon. When Morgan was also found dead Vera and her team hastily put the pieces together to realize that Simon is the culprit on both counts, and that his next target could very well be the aforementioned Connie after she saw him with Lister days before the latter’s grisly end. The show climaxed in a race by Vera and her protégée Joeto save Connie and her young daughter from Simon’s car when it was plunged into a reservoir close to the show’s opening location. In all, it was a razor-sharp plot that made a post-divorce Katie Price look slow-paced.
Aside from the story itself the most arresting and arguably defining element, for me, was the credibility of the show’s titular character D.C.I. Vera Stanhope. Initially I thought she would be the drama’s loveable and lucky unlikely hero: a sort of northern Dawn French-type characterized by her clumsiness and frequent dropping of “pet” and “mam”. Then, her shrewdness and stubborn perseverance were thrown into the mix as she, more or less in isolation, assembled the enquiry’s leads and arsenal of evidence. It was only at the midway point of the episode, though, that Vera won me over. Her chagrin at being discovered to have image-insecurities and her prickly exterior when probed on her emotional defenses muddied all previous assumptions of her being relatively transparent. Indeed, at the episode’s tender end she spoke only a little openly, if at all, about the traumatic loss of her mother. It was refreshing to have an emphatically believable lead, not only because it kept doubt over the episode’s outcome but also for perfect verisimilitude.
![]() |
Yes ma'am, no ma'am: David Leon as Joe |
Sergeant Joe Ashworth, placed professionally if not personally below Vera, was another of the episode’s colossal draws. During the plot’s resolution he stepped forward as its daring hero following 90 minutes spent wrestling with his bullish and perplexing boss, and therefore spared himself the role of the over-eager but incompetent junior. Joe’s relationship with Vera provides yet another delineating dynamic of the series: part mother-son, part tutor-student, part drinking-pals and part mutual confidants. “Vera”'s character stems from its refusal to place any character in any one detective-fiction role- maybe a benefit of having developed from a novel series- and it gives it depth that makes "CSI" look far less distinct from "Scooby Doo" than I first thought. Cleverly, even Jenny Lister (the story’s primary victim) was posthumously put forward as a tauntingly contradictory and interesting character; we heard of her selfishness and implied vanity alongside her defiance and moral resolution to come clean, not to mention the bombshell that she bedded her daughter’s beau after a career championing stable families. Even the supposed villain, Simon, bucked typical detective-drama classification with his eventual composure and remorse; when he declared, “I’m not mad” in response to being well and truly Vera’d it was both authentic and viable.
I’ve mentioned the way the episode maintained its pace and starting momentum, but equally worth note were the red herrings it tantalizingly tacked on as we learnt more and more. For about half an hour it was, according to me, irrefutable that a gang of youths close to the water’s edge was key to the case, whilst my mother had Michael Morgan tried and sentenced before he too became a cropper (and we’re the Cluedo-aces of the family). Even more satisfyingly, no false leads or cues were left unaccounted for by the end credits. To say the episode played out like a completed puzzle would be to cheapen it, but it was well constructed, scarily manipulative and“ahhh”-inducingly fulfilling to the end.
One Line Wonder
Billy (the pathologist, having completed a post-mortem on Jenny Lister): Muesli for breakfast. Apparently you can get it with cranberries.
The Fortune Telly-er
Obviously another intelligent and clue-ridden murder case, but that may as well take the back-seat. I expect more about Joe's home life and a scene with Celine (his off handedly mentioned wife) that will mean more soul-searching with Vera.
Pardon my obtuseness. Why did Simon murder these people? He killed Jenny Lister....b/c...It might be revealed that he slept w/ her? Hardly sufficient motive. (Understatement.) That indiscretion might be in her book? If so; not a good career move on her part. Doubt she'd mention the fling. Somehow; Simon's near (accidental) drowning as a youngster serves as some sort of reason for killing his victims? Guess I'll have to re-watch most of the whole episode. Rather infuriating. Guess I need to pay closer attention. Too many moving parts.
ReplyDelete