The Box Set: "Collateral."

We did it! We got through one! Wooot.

Of course, all we did was watch TV and talk about it, but if the pandemic has taught us anything, the little pleasures in life are important. So, we did good.

The question is, did “Collateral” do good — that is, did it meet your needs and expectations (which, come to think of it, might be different things).

They are certainly different things to different people and I ended up being reminded, as I noted in the podcast preamble above, precisely why I really liked this series when it premiered. I thought, for the most part, that writer Sir David Hare and director SJ Clarkson stuck the landing, which is no easy feat in a jam-packed four episode thriller that bites off a lot of ambition. I’m also willing to say that while I love the mini-miniseries, perhaps four episodes is not ideal. It’s a short story, as most television series are (although they are novels compared to films, so maybe I should adapt that theory), but four is a very short story indeed. It comes with clear drawbacks and for me those were in the forced storytelling, the need for a little too much exposition and, arguably, how a show finds itself as it grows.

I noted that the second episode was the weakest, a set-up for things to come and, indeed, the third episode was much better and then, to a lot of people’s great worry here at The Box Set, episode three also got ambitious pushing the story out and folks were left to wonder if one more episode and about an hour was enough time to wrap things up in a satisfactory manner.

And, as I suggested in the subhead at the top, that will be determined by your personal preferences. I like things a little messy, like life, and I embrace ambiguity. Not everybody does. And being completely transparent, I find ambiguity extremely annoying in series where we’re looking at multiple crazy mysteries, ala “Lost,” and the answers never come because maybe they didn’t have the answers in the first place, as opposed to the answer is “this life just keeps on living and we don’t know what happens,” or “the window on this world is going to slowly shut and you’ll be left to guess at how it all goes on.” Which I’m fine with. I don’t like “there’s a monster in the woods!” and then 65 episodes later we don’t have an answer to why, much less a glimpse of the monster.

B*****d Machine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

So, for me, characters not being held accountable for their actions — getting away with it, if you will — works just fine here. The closing of a window on Kip’s life — I’m fine with that, too. Finding conclusions and explanations is tricky though. I’m not sure David’s storyline worked at all. His relationship with Karen, etc. — he was mostly there as someone who could critique the actions of the government from within and that’s more convenient than interesting. (That said, I loved that David’s last name is Mars, which just seems too much of a coincidence to not be a reference to “Life On Mars,” the brilliant series that John Simm, the actor who plays David, did previously). David did however, have a hand in the Jane story, where she chooses church over love (probably because she got Laurie’s letter about how important it was to Laurie to talk to a priest; that it meant something, that Jane is needed in the community).

Your mileage may vary, as we say, so let’s hear your thoughts below. I did want to mention that I’m glad we did a shorter series and we were able to talk about story and structure in particular, which is tricky in this form (while the greater joy is that you’re in and you’re out, you’re entertained or your interest is piqued, all in four relatively short episodes). So that was good to discuss.

Looking forward to future choices for The Box Set.