1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Red Riding's gaping plot-holes

Discussion in 'Entertainment' started by mikeshaw, Mar 20, 2009.

  1. mikeshaw

    mikeshaw Administrator Staff Member

    I fell for the hype - and was impressed by the cast, lighting and brilliant cinematography.
    But... Red Riding's plot-holes were utterly daft. I'm happy to suspend disbelief, even while watching a programme that blended in real events, such as the Yorkshire Ripper murders, but this failed to meet any internal logic. The confusion wasn't because the script was especially clever or surreal (a la Twin Peaks) but because it wasn't half as clever as it thought it was.
    *spoiler alert*
    OK, let's accept that West Yorkshire police are run by a cartoonish cabal of villains who want to get rich off a massive shopping mall. And they are so keen on this plan that they are willing to protect the villainous property developer involved when they learn that he and a dodgy priest are kidnapping and murdering kids. They'll even murder anyone who gets close to his secret, and frame innocent men for the crimes.
    1) So why then give the journalist a gun and set him on said property developer, thus ruining their chances of getting the shopping centre built?
    2) Once the property developer is dead, why didn't the police arrest / bump off the priest, who now longer has any protection? They seem happy to go to all the trouble of killing off innocent senior police officers and reporters. Wouldn't it make more sense to get rid of the priest as he knows too much, and, if he gives into his temptation again will show that they've locked up the wrong man? The fact that he's a child-killing paedophile is a bonus.
    3) If the priest is the main kidnapper, why does he keep drawing himself to the attention of police officers who aren't in on the plot, such as the Manchester team in the second episode? His decision to take BJ to meet the police officer is a bit like Josef Fritzl taking his daughter for a private chat with a local detective.
    4) Why does the Morrissey cop have a crisis of conscience, and call the journalist, over a few caravans being burned down (although - as far as we know, noone is killed) - and not, say, the child murders and executions of police officers?
    5) Why did the journalist not consider writing a story about the fact he seemed to become a victim of police brutality every 10 minutes? Instead the only story he tries to file is about wings being ripped off swans in a park (which is also a plot hole as the priest seemed to have a series of swan hutches in his caravan, so wouldn't have needed to bother).
    Phew. Glad to get that rant out of my system.
    michael.shaw@tes.co.uk

     
  2. mikeshaw

    mikeshaw Administrator Staff Member

    I fell for the hype - and was impressed by the cast, lighting and brilliant cinematography.
    But... Red Riding's plot-holes were utterly daft. I'm happy to suspend disbelief, even while watching a programme that blended in real events, such as the Yorkshire Ripper murders, but this failed to meet any internal logic. The confusion wasn't because the script was especially clever or surreal (a la Twin Peaks) but because it wasn't half as clever as it thought it was.
    *spoiler alert*
    OK, let's accept that West Yorkshire police are run by a cartoonish cabal of villains who want to get rich off a massive shopping mall. And they are so keen on this plan that they are willing to protect the villainous property developer involved when they learn that he and a dodgy priest are kidnapping and murdering kids. They'll even murder anyone who gets close to his secret, and frame innocent men for the crimes.
    1) So why then give the journalist a gun and set him on said property developer, thus ruining their chances of getting the shopping centre built?
    2) Once the property developer is dead, why didn't the police arrest / bump off the priest, who now longer has any protection? They seem happy to go to all the trouble of killing off innocent senior police officers and reporters. Wouldn't it make more sense to get rid of the priest as he knows too much, and, if he gives into his temptation again will show that they've locked up the wrong man? The fact that he's a child-killing paedophile is a bonus.
    3) If the priest is the main kidnapper, why does he keep drawing himself to the attention of police officers who aren't in on the plot, such as the Manchester team in the second episode? His decision to take BJ to meet the police officer is a bit like Josef Fritzl taking his daughter for a private chat with a local detective.
    4) Why does the Morrissey cop have a crisis of conscience, and call the journalist, over a few caravans being burned down (although - as far as we know, noone is killed) - and not, say, the child murders and executions of police officers?
    5) Why did the journalist not consider writing a story about the fact he seemed to become a victim of police brutality every 10 minutes? Instead the only story he tries to file is about wings being ripped off swans in a park (which is also a plot hole as the priest seemed to have a series of swan hutches in his caravan, so wouldn't have needed to bother).
    Phew. Glad to get that rant out of my system.
    michael.shaw@tes.co.uk

     
  3. You could just give in and enjoy the drama without picking it apart!! It is about time television showed some original and well made drama. The whole trilogy was, in my opinion, extremely impressive, especially as it was made on a tiny budget. If you really want the answers to your questions then read the books, I am sure they will clear everything up.
     
  4. mikeshaw

    mikeshaw Administrator Staff Member

    Cheers mercedes - you're right. Though a colleague who's read the books say the plot leaps in them, particularly the first one, are even worse.
    Agree totally that good dramas should sweep you along. I can happily watch a series about vampires (Buffy), evil robots (Battlestar) or time-travelling policemen (Life on Mars) and suspend my disbelief and enjoy it. But I can do that because they establish an internal logic, then stick with it. For all its hype and supposed grit, I found Red Riding less believable than Scooby Do.
    I think the fact the cast, direction and cinematography were so brilliant it only made the flaws seem worse. And I'm recommending Red Riding to friends, with the caveat about the plot.


     
  5. You need to watch the films again. There are answers to all of these "holes"

    1) They give him the gun to set him up for the murder of the woman who's child went missing, the one he keeps having sex with (it is ridiculous that every just has sex randomly throughout though like Morris and the medium woman, the medium woman is a ridiculous character though, thats the only wobbly bit about the whole thing)

    2) It's not just the property developer (John Dawson) and the police doing it, it's Piggotts dad as well (who was a policeman) and possibly other members of the police force, that we are not told about, there are other people in the room when we see Piggot as "King" when BJ has the flashback to when he was a kid.

    3) That's a trust thing with him and BJ, to make him 'love him' I think anyway. Plus he opens the car door and interrupts the conversation before BJ can give him any useful information. Not read the book but I imagine theres more of a back story leading up to them meeting him.

    4) He would be killed! rang him to try and get someone onto the case, he couldn't or he would have been murdered. Plus he's stuck in the whole property development project if he pulls out they'd kill him, he's just a good(ish) cop.

    5) He also would be killed! plus the head of the paper was pally with the property owner, and wanted him to stop sniffing around Dawson. It's definitely not a swan hutch! don't think he could fit swans in that little coup! they'd be doves or something, just clever use of the feather metaphor! Amazing use of the swan throughout theres little ornaments, one on a lake you even hear the end of conversation in the first 10 minutes about swan mutilation etc... even pops up in the bonus features! amazing!!

    Plot-holes solved!
     

Share This Page