Television
Thaw in law
Nigella Lawson
Actors always love playing barristers. What they extract from these roles is sheer essence of showing off, the necessary germ from which acting grows. Lawyers love see- ing themselves represented on screen because they feel the spectacle glamorises their profession and actors warm to the roles because, understandably enough, of the words. Watching some actors practice at televised advocacy one cannot help get the impression that they think they're speaking rather than merely reciting, they seem to congratulate themselves for their own cleverness. John Thaw, in his latest incarnation as Kavanagh QC (ITV, Tues- day 8.30 p.m.) is not quite one of these. His detractors might say that this is due to a failure of ability on his part rather than to anything more creditable. 'But John Thaw can't act!' said a friend of mine, rather indignantly, when I told him what I was writing about his week. Well, neither can Michael Caine, and it hasn't done him any harm. Actually, I'm not sure it's even true as far as Thaw is concerned. I think he can act, but it's difficult to know what that means on television. I consider, in this con- text, that it means no more than being a watchable image.
Certainly Thaw doesn't go in for Acting with a capital A: so much the better. And I know it's the in thing these days to be scathing about Morse, but it and he were both good. He's good here too, even if there's something not as satisfying about him or the programme. Still, we're only two weeks in and there are a few things to be said about it so far.
What is notable about this as a lawyer- led series is how it differs from the two seminal ones, Perry Mason and Rumpole.
Both, of course, were different from one another but what they shared was that the eponymous heroes worked as detectives rather than merely lawyers. Any one week might see their being presented with a seemingly indefensible/unprosecutable case which they would go on to win, by dint first of finding the crucial evidence thanks to their own brilliant investigative technique or to an unfoolable canniness.
Kavanagh QC goes in for none of this. Like the courtroom-bound banisters of the late lamented Crown Court, he is an advo- cate not a 'tec. Naturally, he is more than a mere advocate: he is a brilliant advocate, `the best' and so on. Well, that's what we're told. The evidence of the lines presents something a little less breathtaking, but probably (with the exception of the heavy emphasis on the eyebrow-raised 'Let me suggest . . . ' line of argument) more true to life. Not that that's actually to the point.
It doesn't matter whether this seems realis- tic to barristers: it has to seem plausible, and entertaining with it, to the rest of us. I think it is. Though using a rape case to grab attention for the opening episode does show a want of confidence in the writ- ing.
This week's programme does in fact bor- row from the favoured, familiar practice of starting with a case which looked not so much unwinnable as no case at all, and ending if not happily then on the side of right. It makes a good fist of showing the difference between justice and legality. John Thaw, in Lloyd George hairdo, lends himself well to the role, and Phoebe Nicholls as a hardboiled-but-tragic Geordie mother is staggeringly good. Anna Chan- cellor as the comely, loyal junior barrister is engaging; her charm and animation are a good foil to Thaw's casual surliness. Like Morse (and it's naive to expect the pro- gramme-makers not to try and cash in on that role) Kavanagh is cleverer than his superiors and doesn't suffer fools or the institution which houses him gladly. A bit of a maverick as they say in the TV biz.
Previous page
