Verdict?

[Jamie]

Well, what did everyone make of the special? I thought it was well made, well acted, well directed, however, strangely, I have to pull up Jimmy McGovern for his writing. It was obvious (all the stuff about America), at times crass (the arrogant American calling the Muslim a "towel head", as well as his attitude in general), and it really lacked the insight into the character.

The best thing about Cracker was always Fitz talking to the criminal at the end, revealing things about the motive of the person, and drawing out our sympathy to this person who would otherwise be thought of as merely a col-blooded bastard. Didn't happen here. Fitz said pretty much nothing, did pretty much nothing, and the main emphasis on the show was the politics of the writer.

Also, whatever happened to "Fitz is still, mad, bad, and dangerous to know..." No he isn't. He seemed tamed in this episode, as though his impotency was also affecting his attitude as well as his nether regions. Where were the cutting remarks? Where was the sarcasm? The heavy drinking? All the things that make him a great character?

Fitz came across as the character he was when paul Abbott wrote his dialogue in this episode, NOT Jimmy McGovern, which was a real shame.

That's not to say it was a bad episode, there were some nice touches, but all the gritty realism of the great episodes was gone, all the intrigue at the end of the episodes such as To Be a Somebody and To Say I love You was missing.

In the end I think the episode was just like Fitz... tried hard, but was ultimately impotent.

[Admin]

I think a lot of it, in terms of Fitz's character, came down to the fact it was too short - there really wasn't enough of Fitz at all, infact this UK version was edited from the version Australia and Germany saw. Where was Fitz's "Father of the Bride" speech in this? Edited out for the UK for whatever reasons...it was a great scene, and one of the few that completely captured the Fitz of old.

I'm not sure if it's an age thing as to why Fitz seems to have lost that edge he had when he first got involved with the police back in the original series. He felt almost restrained, but I do agree that if you are going by Robbie Coltrane's statement in an interview that Fitz was still "mad, bad and dangerous to know", then it didn't quite feel that way in this special.

Wasn't sure about the new credits at all - they seemed totally out of character for the show. And what was with the new advert break picture? What happened to the old iconic image of Fitz smoking that was used in the old series?! That hasn't dated and would have been a nice little throw back to the originals. The lack of explanation of Fitz being in Australia was a bit frustrating too. I'm sure it was explained in the script, but probably got lost in the editing somewhere. And the interrogation scenes...well there wasn't any really, not like the old ones. And the end bit in Kenny's house just felt incredibly rushed. It should have been much more drawn out than it was, but I imagine this came down to the time element.

And whilst I think the new coppers were OK, it just wasn't the same. I knew it wouldn't be, especially after so long between episodes, but I missed DCI Wise, and Fitz investigating and doing his stuff without Panhandle by his side just doesn't seem right somehow. There were barely any links back to the original series actually (other than Fitz's family) - infact none at all, which I found a bit sad, especially in terms of the police. But, I still enjoyed it and I thought Anthony Flanagan in particular was fantastic. But it hasn't surpassed any of the old classics for me, and I am still very mixed about the prospect of a new series.

[Pegasus]

I'm afraid that the new Cracker did not come up to our expectations. As great Fitz fans our household were really looking forward to this new Cracker and settled in to watch. What a disappointment this turned out to be. Fitz looked slow, none of his usual bounce, with no punch in his performance. His poor wife, what has 7 years in Australia done to her. She looked ancient, why was she made to look that old? The story line was not unexpected, bringing the Americans to book once again. Not the best of Jimmy McGovern's jottings. I suppose you cannot bring something back and expect it to be as good, but this was a really disappointment, sadly. Time to pack Fitz's bags?

[phil]

have to agree it was a dissapointment but I think one of specials always will be, main stories and sub plots need time to evolve and for that we would need another 6 episode series

[Acoustic Trip]

Phil you are so right. Another six episodes would at least allow the new characters to be developed too. I was pleased that it was left open for another. Go on producers make our day.........

[ben]

I just got around to watching the recent new episode of ‘Cracker’, and to be honest, I was very disappointed with it, and felt that it failed on many levels. On the whole, it was a very good piece of entertaining television drama, but it just wasn’t ‘Cracker’. Admittedly, after a ten year hiatus the tone of a programme and its dynamics are bound to change a little, but in every single sense it felt like a different programme. I’ll try my best to elaborate on the flaws I encountered with ‘Nine Eleven’.

My biggest gripe was definitely concerning characters. I felt that the new characters (the police) were dull and lacked any emotional depth whatsoever, and I felt that the beloved older characters weren’t given enough screen time to re-immerse the viewer with their personalities and explore the various relationships, that were such an integral part of the original series. What on earth for example has happened to Fitz? Granted, Australia and ageing have probably mellowed him somewhat, but he was no longer rude, arrogant, outspoken, witty and endearing, and Robbie Coltrane seemed to be delivering his lines on autopilot. In the special Fitz just seemed to break out into rambling monologues, but the strength of McGovern’s previous episodes was that Fitz’s outbursts were always relatable, interesting and engaging, and the audience was able to appreciate his arrogance and intelligence at the same time.

I think McGovern’s best work came when he was given a longer time duration to play with – and I think his four three-part episodes are still the series’ finest. ‘Nine Eleven’ could have done with being half-an-hour/one hour longer, because there was nowhere near enough time to engender relationships between characters. In the original run, a great chunk of the episodes would be dedicated to Fitz’s chaotic family life, which provided some great comedy and some wonderful drama. As with Fitz, Mark and Judith did hardly anything, and the episode could have easily have succeeded without the presence of the three returning characters at all. Try as I might, even though I vaguely recognised the character of Fitz, his actions, dialogue and situations just didn’t ring true. I didn’t like the idea that he had changed and settled down, because it detracted enormously from the established view I had of him as a character in my head. I’ve seen all the original ten stories, and I liked coming away from them believing that Fitz was still Fitz, a danger to himself and his family – an alcoholic, a gambler and a rather bad husband or father. I was hoping Fitz would be able to redeem himself by turning out a superb analysis of the killer at the end. There was none of the trademark classic interrogation scenes, no chance for Fitz to delve into the troubled mind of his suspect, no opportunity to engage the audience with the villain, no attempt made to promote the notion that Fitz was a good, gifted psychologist…

The feeling I received from this episode was just empty if I’m honest. The characters of Fitz, his family and his colleagues were so well-rounded and brilliantly constructed by McGovern, that I could completely comprehend them and see them living real lives as real people, and not merely fictional baseless television cardboard characters. Beck, Billborough and particularly Penhalogen were a major part of establishing the realism and the superb ethos that ‘Cracker’ had, and without the electrifying relationship between Fitz and Panhandle, the tension between him and his fellow officers, the special was completely devoid of depth. ‘Cracker’ was so much more than a cop=show (perhaps so much more than a TV drama), and without Fitz and Penhalogen questioning suspects and gritty, realistic situations and characters, ‘Nine Eleven’ was just not ‘Cracker’. Despite the flaws of these characters in the original series, the viewer couldn’t help but like them, but can anyone honestly say that Fitz was portrayed with any personality in the new episode? Did he come across as a well-rounded character, who you felt you understood?
I had issues with the plot as well, and it didn’t seem to have the pace of the great classic episodes of the 1990’s. Kenny Archer wasn’t explored deeply enough for the audience to understand, appreciate or engage with him, which I think could have been reversed if we had had an interrogation scene between him and Fitz at the end. The police department was just banal and uninteresting, the new DCI being deeply boring (he was ‘disappointed’ with everything and everyone it seems). In conclusion, it needed to be longer, there needed to be more of Fitz and his family (the background, the relationships, the dogmatic personality), etc.

I, personally, think ‘Cracker’ should have ended after ‘True Romance’ (although it would have been nice to have a few loose-ends tied up somehow), and I still retain this feeling. There are currently rumours circulating that ‘Cracker’ may get a fourth series, but to be honest, I think they should quit while their ahead – whilst ‘Cracker’ is still regarded as one of the best pieces of drama ever aired on British television. I think more episodes of the standard of ‘Nine Eleven’ will take away from the original series, and it will loose its deserved reputation. This may sound dubious, but I think the mark of a good television show is to stop before it gets stale, and I think the characters in ‘Cracker’ have run their coarse. Although in theory, it would be nice to have more ‘Cracker’, I think the reality is that we should leave our favourite characters alone now, because they’ve said all there is to say. Although I’m against it, if there were to me a new series, it is simply integral that they persuade Geraldine Somerville back to reprise her role, and there be much more focus on Fitz and the relationships with the people around him. My critique may sound deeply negative, but ‘Cracker’ was such a brilliant series, and I really don’t want them to churn out unnecessary sequels when the originals are good enough and should stand alone as some of the greatest pieces of television ever made.
Here’s how I’d rate the ‘Cracker’ episodes from best to worst:

1. To Be A Somebody
2. To Say I Love You
3. Men Should Weep
4. Brotherly Love

5. The Mad Woman in the Attic
6. One Day a Lemming Will Fly
7. True Romance
8. The Big Crunch

9. Best Boys
10. Nine Eleven
11. White Ghost

The first four episodes on my list are virtually inseparable, and I think they’re almost flawless. The second batch of episodes are all brilliant too, and definitely worthy additions to the show. The last three I think are pretty poor by the high standards of ‘Cracker’ though.

[Admin]

Ben, what a fantastic post. I agree with a lot of it. I enjoyed the episode in the sense, that it was great to see Fitz back again (even if he didn't seem quite himself!) and great that McGovern was back on scriptwriting duties. And Kenny worked very well. But did it feel the same as the Cracker of old? Not really, but I guess that's understandable in some respects. Also, and this is a key thing for me, I don't think I could really watch 'Nine Eleven' again. I've seen it a couple of times and it's enough - and I felt that way about 'White Ghost'. Whereas I honestly can say I have watched all the others (particulary the McGovern stories) absolutley hundreds of times, I know them inside out. And I will never get bored of watching them. They are just utterly fantastic in every sense. I also thought 'Nine Eleven' lacked any real humour, something that featured a lot of in the originals and worked so well in providing some light relief to all the tension and drama - whether it was Fitz's wisecracks or some of DCI Wise's comments.

It without doubt needed to be longer. I think it would have worked much better over two nights, with everything developed a lot more. Not enough Fitz at all - which is why I still can't believe they edited out some of the wedding scenes. As for the police characters - they were there to do a job and nothing more. There probably wasn't enough time to delve into them properly, but even so, I don't really feel like I want to know more about them to be honest. Not the fault of the actors or anything...it's just Cracker to me, apart from Fitz obviously, is Bilborough, Jimmy Beck, DCI Wise and Penhaligon. They were as much a part of the show as Fitz - I just think they are irreplaceable as characters and I will always be comparing the new lot to them.

In many ways, yes it should have been left at the end of 'True Romance'. It was open ended and it was left for the viewer to make up their own minds as to what happened from then on. But with 'Nine Eleven' we now know...Fitz went to Australia with Judith and his family and left Manchester behind. But we still have no real closure on him and Panhandle. As for a 4th series, my main concern is we are going to be left with Fitz and a whole bunch of new characters (especially given Judith's exit at the end of 'Nine Eleven'), or even worse a new series which has McGovern writing one story and then leaving the rest to other writers. If that happened then I think I would really struggle with it. And I agree Ben - it's vital they get Geraldine Somerville involved again, it just doesn't feel like the same show without her. I wonder now if the reason why she didn't end up being in this one after all was the time constraint - there was barely enough time for Fitz in 'Nine Eleven', let alone Penhaligon as well.

[Jamie]

Great post Ben (and Sarah!) I haven't watch Nine Eleven again, and have no real urge to, but I must reiterate your thoughts and the thoughts from my previous post. Thinking about this episode again, the things I disliked stick out like sore thumbs. What makes those things even more obviosu is the fact that last night I watched the Behind The Scenes documentary that I recorded after Nine Eleven. The clips they showed in that from the classic episodes really brought home all the things that were missing from this. Quite ironic when you think about it.

Example 1: no interrogation. The beauty of the great Crackers was that you'd have the criminals and their life juxtaposed with Fitz and his life. These two lives, completely disconnected in every way at the beginning of the story would then be put on a collision course as soon as the first crime had been commited. Like, before Albie kills the shopkeeper he is just a regular working class guy who will never meet Fitz for any reason. As soon as he kills him, that's it, Fitz is in his life (even when he doesn't know of Fitz's existence yet) and as you cut between what Albie is doing and what Fitz is doing, you've got the beautiful prospect of the two of them being face to face towards the end of the show to look forward to. What will Fitz say? How will Albie react to it? What will we learn about this man? Et cetera et cetera.

That was the great thing about Cracker. The writing by McGovern would be so funny, so biting, so REAL, all the way through, and no matter how good it was you knew the true pay off would come at the end, during the interrogation scenes. In Nine Eleven that didn't happen. Instead what did we get? Fitz having a nice chat over a cup of tea. I realise he isn't allowed to do interviews the way he used to anymore but McGovern could have manufactured a way that wouold have made a real one-on-one conversation possible. I had hopes at the end, when Fitz entered the house that we might get some of his pearls of insight and wisdom, but we got none.

Example 2: Flashbacks. Utterly pointless. The flashbacks were put in there so we would understand why the guy was killing people. Isn't that what Fitz is there for? We're supposed to start off by thinking of these people as nothing more than inhuman bastards, or nutters with loose wiring, but the beauty of Cracker was that they'd always turn it around at the end, where, for example, you'd learn that Tina hates beauty because of her blind sister, and having to explain stuff to her all the time. That is such a great reason to give for someone being blank, almost without personality. I never tire of watching those scenes with Tina because the insight you get is done with great script writing, delivered of course by Fitz. The flashbacks here were just lazy, which is surprising coming from McGovern.

In fact, the main problem here, indeed with the whole of the episode, is that McGovern didn't want us to UNDERSTAND why he was killing yanks, he wanted us to agree with it (doubt he'd admit that, but it's the impression I get). Everything was centered around us sympathising with Kenny. Whereas the Fitz of old would have torn him to shreds and shown that, though understandable, his behaviour was actually just a get out clause to escape the troubles in all areas of his life (or something like that!), McGovern didn't want that to happen, because the Fitz of old might actually have undermined his own politics.

Example 3: Mellow Fitz. As so many other people have said, Fitz was a shadow of his former self. The reason people loved his character was because, despite his numerous flaws, he was biting, and witty, and cutting, and offensive, and charming, and clever, all at once. Some of his monologues must be the greatest bits of writing ever put to television. yet here there was none of that. When the DCI asked him to leave the Fitz of old would have gone apenuts with him, calling him a fool for not reading between the lines, for not seeing the bigger picture. but here he just got up like an old man who was ashamed that he'd soiled his underpants in front of his family and slowly trotted out the room.

If this was all part of McGovern's big "change" theme that was mentioned so much before the airing then it wasn't made clear enough. it was inconsistent throughout the episode. We never got a good look at Manchester, never felt a real sense of change, never learnt how much Fitz had changed in Australia. Plus there were a few signs of the old Fitz, like his behaviour at the wedding, so if he really had mellowed why would he do that at his daughter's wedding and yet be such a pushover with a weak-minded cop? I was actually waiting for the bit when he was going to tell the DCI exactly why he had trouble communicating with people so much, yet he never did it. Hell, look at what Fitz said to Wise the first time he met him , "you're in charge, point made". Just a little thing, but it told us so much about Fitz's personality, as well as the personality Wise was going to have (and how that would differ from Billborough).

Example 4: The slickness. The picture was too crisp, too slick. the title sequence was pointless. Where was the gritty, drained-out-colour look of old? Oh of course, it had to be built up and hyped, so therefore needed to look spotless to meet its own level of class. The whole thing looked how a Cracker episode would look if being done in America (apart from the storyline of course!)


Okay I've run out of steam now. but there is one tiny shred of hope I noticed and will mention before I go - the very end. All the stuff about "mellow Fitz" might, just might be part of McGovern's masterplan if a new series were to come along. Here we go...

... we never really saw Fitz going for the booze in a big way. Yeah he was pissed at the wedding, and was seen drinking whiskey at times, but his habits of old (including gambling) were really nowhere to be seen. Now, if he's been living relatively clean in Australia for 10 years then this is completely believeble, you don't just fall off the wagon like that after a decade of going (relatively) straight.

So that is why the final scene of Fitz walking up the street with a bottle of whiskey in his hand rang alarm bells in my head. Consider the scene in Unforgiven, when clint Easwood's character, after years of not drinking, finally goes over the edge and starts necking the whiskey. That's the moment when he finally gives in and all his old ways soon rush back into his life (the killing etc.)

If there is to be another special or another series, maybe Fitz will be back to the gambling and the heavy drinking? That final shot of him certainly would attest to that possiblility. Because he was essentially giving in completely to his old ways, not fighting it anymore, and with his wife gone he can pretty much do that now without guilt or repremand.

Or maybe I just need to go back to my job and stop thinking about this. but you know, I was really disappointed with this episode, because it could have been great. And I'd like to think they could drag it back up again into greatness. Still, I'm not too bothered because i'll always have the great episodes to watch when i like

[Admin]

re the change in Fitz, ITV made a big thing of flogging this new special as "Fitz returning his old ways", and you are right Jamie - it didn't really kick in until the end with those final scenes - in terms of the drinking anyway, and I agree with what you say about it feeling like he was just giving into it in the end.

From the ITV website:

It's meant to be a fleeting visit, but Fitz immediately rediscovers old passions - excessive gambling, drinking, smoking and women - but he also can't wait to ‘crack' his first case in modernised Manchester.

But it wasn't really like that at all. We saw Fitz in a casino once! And what's this "women" thing? It really annoys me when people write up Fitz in magazine articles etc and call him a 'womaniser' or 'serial philanderer'. Because he never was that at all! It's just lazy writing, and if people went back and watched the series in full they'd see that. I think even the producer Andy Harries in the ITV3 documentary made reference to it. He was involved in a complicated relationship with one woman other than his wife. Hardly constitutes him being a womaniser.

[ben]

I ended up re-watching 'Nine Eleven' again last night (I didn't intend too, but my parents were watching it), and it was definitely better on a second viewing. Although I still stand by the various flaws that I outlined in my previous post, I feel I have to make myself clear on something. While not a typical episode of 'Cracker', the special was still a hugely thought-provoking and engaging watch, and definitely a superb piece of television drama. The problem is that 'Nine Eleven' would have been a good piece of drama, regardless of Fitz's presence, which is my biggest problem with it.

The special has recently been classified by the BBFC (I think it's been given a 15 certificate), and it says the DVD running time is 109 minutes in duration, which means its the unedited version! I might have to buy it to see the scenes that were cut from Sunday's broadcast (ITV are so annoying - it only lasted about 95 minutes without adverts), and it says that it features a commentary with Jimmy McGovern which should be interesting (and hopefully he'll talk more about Fitz and the original run).

[Johnny]

It wasn't up to the series, obviously. As for people saying about links to the original series, I think that would have been very difficult to do convincingly and might have just wrecked our perception of the originals, as would suddenly introducing police with deeper characters, it would have been clumsy, I think it's best that they were done more on the periphery. I'm not saying it was great, but focusing it more on the politics was wise in the case of it coming back and not wanting to ruin the old ones. I think it's a bit harsh on Coltrane, after all the character would have aged, lost the other guys, Manchester's changed and he's been in Australia, plus had a young baby grow into a boy and had grandkids. So it's realistic the character would be different and I thought he did that well. I though Anthony Flanagan was superb and I thought Fitz's comments on Northern Ireland vs Iraq etc were well written and poignant. Seeing Manchester's difference through Fitz's return was good too. Overall I think they should have left it(they defo should now), but I think it was an interesting effort, particualy for the way it saw Manchester which fitted in with a one-off return format.