|
|
Patrick Barkham
The Guardian, Monday 9 March 2009
The first part of the Red Riding trilogy, broadcast last Thursday on Channel 4,
left more than a few viewers in the dark. Everyone seems to have a different theory about what happened. I think I saw through the fog. Or did I? These are the key points that seem to be causing confusion - and my attempts at answering them:
So, Sean Bean's character killed all those little girls?
Bean's wealthy businessman John Dawson confessed to his "weakness" when confronted by Eddie Dunford, Andrew Garfield's gun-toting hack in the Karachi club (remember that name). One of the murdered girls was found dumped on his building site, plus there was that swan thing. But as you will have already realised, almost everyone is complicit in the Red Riding trilogy.
And the police knew about it and let him continue?
The murk lifts more fully in the final episode, but yes.
Why?
The police were too compromised by their part in a conspiracy to stop Dawson by the usual means.
What were the swans about?
Dawson was obsessed by swans, as we saw from the design of his house. Make of this motif what you will. Swans could symbolise purity, aggression or vanity; in Greek mythology the swan has erotic connotations - Zeus seduced Leda in the form of a swan.
So why did the wife keep blathering about "under the carpets"?
It suggests that, like Fred West, Dawson may have buried bodies beneath his home. But I have no idea. She was mad.
Did the police torture the reporter to make him kill Sean Bean?
As I see it, Dunford's torture was everyday sadistic pleasure for the police; showing him his dead girlfriend and giving him a gun also triggered his destruction of Dawson.
Why didn't they just kill Bean themselves?
You keep your hands clean if someone else does your dirty work. And, as the next two Thursdays will reveal, if Dunford failed, the corrupt cops had another plan ...
|
| Guardian.co.uk |
|