Close to the Enemy

I expect this will annoy some people and if so all well and good. Reading the negative reviews of Poliakoff's recent BBC drama I was apt to think that the reviewers were likely to be from a particular demographic: white, middle aged and ( this is a long shot) Brexit voters. It seems to me that they have completely misunderstood the whole point of this brilliant drama. It is indeed stylistically quirky, stilted in its language and takes a long time to get to its real points. However, it is a wonderful journey and well worth the seven hours it takes to get there. Far from being poorly acted, as several people state, it is quite brilliantly acted and huge talents like Lindsay Duncan and Alfred Molina are far from wasted. Moreover there are new talents being revealed here. I think that the reason several reviewers hate it so much is that it is a cultured and deliberately nuanced piece of drama that demands the audience pay attention and read between the lines. For it is not really about the 1940s at all! It is about now. It is about the racism and bigotry of the time in which we live. The intolerance of difference and tendency to avoid thinking in our society. The moral dilemmas of the central characters are not simply those of the 1940s where murderers got away with things because the British, Americans and Russians wanted to use their knowledge to create weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons are not only still with us but pose a threat that may be even greater than in the Cold War era. It is about power in age age when bigotry, racism and fear are ever present. The efforts of some to create a Europe and international community of cooperation are placed in jeopardy by the ignorance of those who don't want to think, don't wish to explore the past for what it can teach us and who simply want the crap of the vast majority of media output we are presented with on TV, film and the Internet. If you can't see that you have totally misunderstood the point of Poliakoff's work.

Why does the BBC keep pouring out cash whenever Poliakoff writes a new series? In recent years there has been the awful Glorious 39 and the daft Dancing on the Edge, both of which were set in the thirties. They were marked by a lack of realism on more than one level. This would be fine if they substituted something else, such as comedy. As it is, they are just naff.

Now we are in an unconvincing version of the 1940s. Others have commented on the awful dialogue (which presumably is meant to be a clever conceit?), the stereotypical characters and the plot, which on past form, won't be satisfactorily resolved. Poliakoff seems to be particularly weak on finishing them.

In this serial, which I'm writing about after two episodes, there are, so far, some interesting elements and characters, despite the stereotyping, and I'll have to wait and see what the dénouement is like.

Jim Sturgess is not good in this. Why does he have a fake accent resembling Alan Whicker? He's supposed to be a superbrain, but comes over as a bit of a dope.

This highly stylised drama examines how morality is distorted by the politics of war, government and commercial interest. Each character represents an attitude or moral standpoint as they struggle to come to terms with the new post war priorities. Close To the Enemy resonates with the moral dilemmas of the times in which we live now through the perspective of post WWII Britain. It is beautifully crafted and thought provoking in a style not dissimilar to Dennis Potter. It is not really an historical drama, more an allegory. We are living through turbulent times, all the more so if you are in the Middle East, Africa or any of the many countries now suffering from exploitation and suppression. Poliakoff invites those of us who are more fortunate to consider who is really in control and examine theirs and our morals and motives.I love it!

Absolutely love Close to the Enemy. We need more series on TV which make us think as we wait for the dark side of certain characters to be exposed with the nuances of a brief glance saying so much. I lived through this time in history and the story is believable. All the actors are superbly cast. I have begun to like Dieter and Lotte and am hoping their ending will be a happy one but I will have to wait and see. The relationship between Callum and Rachel is sometimes difficult to watch with my young family members but c'est la vie. We have yet to know the true horrors of Callum and his brother Victor's experiences in the War, only viewing a flash back of Callum and being told Victor was at Monte Cassino. Well done to all involved and thank you for making Thursday night a moment I can look forward to and enjoy. Barbara

First of all, I am a big Poliakoff fan. Shooting The Past and Perfect Strangers were almost perfect pieces of drama - a fantastic story (in the true sense of the word) sublimely paced and acted - a sheer joy to watch again and again as I have done. Good Poliakoff just takes over all your senses - you become part of it rather than watching from the outside. and as with all great art, leaves you feeling almost renewed for having seen it. Close To The Enemy - and I have just watched episode 5 has all the brilliant Poliakoff touches sprinkled on like jewels. It has a finely nuanced story, slow pacing, sumptuous characterful sets, exquisite photography and good music (although this is the weakest of Adrian Johnston's normally outstanding work for Poliakoff). The jazz is fantastic though.

But there is something wrong, and I think a lot of that is in the casting. Jim Sturgess in the lead role lacks any form of charisma - he would be fine in a supporting role, but is appallingly cast here, and it has had a significant negative effect on the production. The character needs to be slightly larger than life and he is simply not. Just think how Tim Spall has set previous Poliakoffs alight. Lindsay Duncan, Alfred Molina and the sublime Angela Bassett have charisma and gravitas in spades but they do not make up for a badly cast lead. I sincerely hope Poliakoff has realised his casting issue and will not let it happen again. But this production, imperfect as it is, still has lots of Poliakoff magic albeit a bit too thinly spread. Still, I can't wait to see the next episode - it is a highlight of my week and the highlight of my current TV viewing.

Update after seeing whole series. This was a very flawed masterpiece. I stand by my opinion of the lead character - a big mistake. I think the whole production was too long and there were parts with no explanation - Lindsay Duncan's character and the perfume formula came from nowhere and went nowhere, though thank goodness for her presence. The "unexpected" end did not seem right to me and seemed a last minute change. But there were times when the magic shone through and the hand of the master was seen at work. My fellow reviewers have been much more negative and I can see why but perhaps time and repeat viewings will change minds You can't please everyone and sometimes genius is not recognised till it's too late.