Thursday, June 2, 2022

The Ambiguity of "Landscapers"

I nearly stopped watching "Landscapers" after the first episode, because I found the main characters, Susan and Chris Edwards (Olivia Colman and David Thewlis) rather dull and uninteresting.  The pair are aging Brits, with a pile of annoying little neuroses, who have been hiding out in France for years due to some undisclosed crime in their pasts.  Their careful anonymity unravels when Chris makes a fatal mistake that reveals the awful truth - they were involved in the deaths of Susan's parents (Felicity Montagu and David Hayman) and a subsequent cover-up.  The first episode ends with the couple giving themselves up to the police.


However, I'm very glad I kept watching the miniseries, because once Susan and Chris are split up, and start being interrogated by a team led by DC Lancing (Kate O'Flynn), we start getting a better picture of who these two are, and how their crime is more complicated than it seems.  I don't think it's a spoiler to reveal that the Edwards were eventually convicted of murder, since the series is based on true events and the creators signal their guilt almost from the beginning.  The series spends the next three episodes humanizing Susan and Chris, and exploring the wide gulf that exists between the sensationalistic media narratives around the investigation and trial, and the more nuanced portrayal that this new dramatization offers.  


There's always some concern when a piece of media takes a more sympathetic view of people who have done something terrible, and in this case I don't know how you can get to the end of "Landscapers" without feeling some sympathy toward the Edwards.  The writers never make much of a case for their innocence, because the evidence against the Edwards is plain, but they do offer motives and background for their actions that show some of their actions in a different light.  And though the Edwards are shown to  lie and exaggerate constantly, the show argues that a major redeeming factor is that they love each other and manage to maintain that love through the whole, terrible judicial process.  


The creators are very self-aware that they're creating a narrative that subverts an existing one, and they constantly draw attention to what they're doing while criticizing the tactics of the previous storytellers - namely the law enforcement officials and lawyers responsible for building and prosecuting the case against the Edwards.  There are fourth wall breaking moments and fantasy conceits, such as Susan imagining that she's revisiting the crime scene, only inhabited by the idealized versions of her parents that the prosecution is pushing.  The last episode contains a framing device with Susan and Chris playing romantic outlaws in a Hollywood western.  Some episodes end with clips of a more typical true-crime program that paints the Edwards as monsters over the credits. 

   

This leaves us with some interesting questions about the nature of true crime stories.  Clearly, we feel more sympathetic toward the Edwards in "Landscapers" because they are being played by two of the best working British actors, and given well-written dialogue from talented writers.  The story highlights their devotion to each other and their more entertaining eccentricities, while ignoring the less savory parts of their personalities.  The portrait of the Edwards painted by the miniseries may be no more truthful than the sensationalized tabloid versions, but it's more compelling because it's more thoughtful and more well-rounded, and delivered with skill by very talented creators.


Then again, this is not a documentary, and has less of a duty to tell the truth.  Rather, it tells *a* truth, which is that despite everyone's good intentions, any attempt to impose a narrative on a set of events is going to get bungled up somewhere, and the Edwards, who got stuck in the roles of the villains, may not have deserved it.  As a piece of entertainment, I can find little to criticize about "Landscapers."  Thewlis and Colman give committed and sincere performances, particularly Colman, whose big monologue on the witness stand in the last episode might make you cry.  This is a very different take on the true crime genre, and fans should absolutely give it a watch - as a cautionary tale if nothing else.      

---

No comments:

Post a Comment