sun 21/12/2014

Silk, BBC One | TV reviews, news & interviews

Silk, BBC One

Is barrister-turned-writer Peter Moffat a credible witness? The jury's still out

Spot the Harrovian: Rupert Penry-Jones and Maxine Peake play rival barristers in Silk
Spot the Harrovian: Rupert Penry-Jones and Maxine Peake play rival barristers in Silk

There was a moment in last night’s Silk when a young solicitor turned up late for a trial. He was also an actor, he explained to his client’s counsel, and had to attend an audition. For a Head & Shoulders ad. The USP of Peter Moffat’s courtroom dramas is that, more than any writer since John Mortimer, he knows whereof he speaks. Having once been a barrister himself, the serpentine ins and outs of chambers, the politicking and skulduggery etc etc are his area of expertise. So you take it on trust that the events dramatised here are the truth and nothing but.

Thus a barrister furtively snorts coke at a chambers party. A pupil shoplifts a wig worth north of a grand. And a solicitor moonlights as an actor. If you say so, m’lud. As he explained to Adam Sweeting on theartsdesk, Moffat sees Silk as a belated chance to unburden himself of all the stories of the Bar dammed up inside him since Channel 4 didn’t commission a second series of North Square. This stuff happens. That’s the claim.

If there is a problem with Silk – and there definitely is - it’s the usual one that infects all television dramas, from Lip Service to Spooks. Take the two pupils attached to the two main barristers. One turns up on his first day with his tousled telly hair stuffed into a beanie. Another has lately been deemed saucepot enough to have sex with a Tudor monarch (Natalie Dormer, pictured below with Tom Hughes). If these two catalogue models are trainee barristers then I’m the Lord Chief Justice. In this version of the Bar, everyone looks like they’ve just come from an audition. That’s because they have. Which begs an important question. Whose version of legal reality are you inclined to believe? The casting director doesn't make the writer look like a credible witness.

tumblr_lglam8WNH11qzqpz1o1_500So anyway, Silk is basically South Square. Same set-up, same characters, in one case even same cast. Chambers are still run by a wily hardnut of a clerk, played this time round by Neil Stuke. And once more there’s an ambitious, overworked female barrister (Martha Costelloe, played by Maxine Peake) fighting hard for preferment in a system which favours chaps: “245 women silks ever!” said Stuke to no one in particular. “You’ve got to respect a statistic like that.” You’ve certainly got to crowbar it into the script, anyway.

Peake, an actress with both feet planted in the world as you know it, excellently keeps as close to real as the script allows: fiery, committed, but also knackered and vulnerable. Meanwhile, opening the batting for the phallocracy is Clive (Rupert Penry-Jones, formerly of North Square), from the Dick Dastardly school for unreconstructed shits. All he’s missing is some moustachios to twirl. “Stop saying ‘tops’ like you’re someone normal, Clive,” Martha advised like a proper stroppy northern class warrior. “You went to Harrow.”  That’s telling him. And us.

There was a lot of that sort of exposition. This being a first episode, Moffat introduced a novice figure called Nick (Hughes) who knows nothing and to whom, therefore, things Must Be Spelled Out. He’s basically the show’s audience rep. Unlike an audience though, Nick’s meant to have a degree in law, so it’s remarkable quite how much does have to be spelled out. “What part of the phrase ‘Innocent until proved guilty’ are you not familiar with?” he was very nearly asked. Not that he’s necessarily the bluntest tool in the box. “How old are you?” Nick asked Martha. “Thirty-five,” she said. “How long have you been that for?” Smart repartee, but would a pupil aged 21 really be so cheeky on day one without getting a clip round the ear?

Silk feels most grounded when it puts itself in the hands of courtroom ritual and its inherently dramatic structure. Here characters must talk to one another rather than to the audience. The two court cases in this episode neatly crystallised the defence barrister’s dilemma: Martha lost a case for a defendant whose innocence she instinctively believed in, and managed to acquit a career criminal she intensely disliked. For the rest, Silk is working overtime to get your attention. Fur flies, glass breaks (twice, for good measure) and Penry-Jones tumbles downstairs. All in a day’s drama. “First impressions,” advised Martha. “Make them like you.” This juror is still out.

If these two catalogue models are trainee barristers then I’m the Lord Chief Justice

Share this article

Comments

Actually, I'm loving 'Silk'. Whilst I agree that Nick of the tousled hair would likely have been told to un-tousle his hair by now (and yes, he's relaxed come backs to his pupil-mistress seem unlikely) it is only fair that the audience have a Rep - afterall, there are few people who have an understanding of our legal system and I can put up with a bit of explanation from time to time if it means those who might be scared away from such a topic will get to enjoy this drama. Popular arts of any type (novels, films, television) are tidied up and packaged nicely - that's what the viewer wants. Silk is a bedtime story for grown ups and if it was all raw banter and untied ends then we'd feel short-changed. I think it's a great little show and I'm very much hoping it is commissioned for a second series. Rumpole meets Iago (from Othello) meets Morse meets Catherine off of CSI. A worthy hour of my time before sloping off to bed to face another day of untied ends and raw banter in the real world.
I'd like to know how much the producers were paid by the tobacco industry to have the lead character smoke in the very last scene..?
I thought the first episode was excellent entertainment and a fantastic portrayal of life at the bar. Maxine Peak's performance was completely faultless.
Utter tripe. The programme was superficial, the characters shallow. The storylines simplistic. If I didn't know better I'd have assumed it was a spoof. John Thaw would turn in his grave. Very disappointing.
Not sure if I can agree with this review. To be honest, a courtroom series might be a bit too dull or "heavy" without a bit of drama on the side to make it interesting. And to criticise the show because the actors are too attractive is , quite frankly, a bit petty. And yes, there is a lot of exposition in the episode; but it is the first episode of the series. If they didn't give a bit of exposition you would likely criticise it for that. In short I found it an enjoyable episode and am interested to see more and while I can see some of the flaws you pointed out, none of them seemed big enough that they would ruin the show for me.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Use to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Subscribe to theartsdesk.com

Thank you for continuing to read our work on theartsdesk.com. For unlimited access to every article in its entirety, including our archive of more than 10,000 pieces, we're asking for £2.95 per month or £25 per year. We feel it's a very good deal, and hope you do too.

To take an annual subscription now simply click here.

And if you're looking for that extra gift for a friend or family member, why not treat them to a theartsdesk.com gift subscription?

newsletter

Get a weekly digest of our critical highlights in your inbox each Thursday!

Simply enter your email address in the box below

View previous newsletters