In last night's episode, the woman who we discovered tonight is ultimately behind the murders looks shocked when she sees the man's picture on telly and locks herself in the bathroom. The man then repeatedly punches a hole through the wall then threatens her with a knife while she says that she loves him.
Why would she act like this if she was the one behind the killings/they were in it together? From that scene it looked like she had no idea.
The one scene that mars this otherwise classic example of misdirection, worthy of Christie. I have rewatched the secne in question and cannot think of anyway out of the plot hole. Very clumsy/lazy piece of writing.
The only thing that could explain it and i'm reaching for straws here is that she was scared that he was plastered all over the news and that it might somehow lead back to her or he might turn her in?. Obviously at the time we don't know she has any connection to it. At the start when she takes Owen back to the flat, I thought she had this thing of making homeless people feel so bad that they killed themselves etc. I was totally wrong about that but she was involved in another way. I was surprised at the ending, that Owen didn't react badly to the news that she was involved with the death of an earlier man etc. I didn't expect them to hold hands and jump. Also was the first man's death just random and cos she could do that or was there a link that I missed?. Did she kill the Deacon herself or get him to do it?
Thats actually a decent idea - that she was scared that they were going to be caught, and he was worried that she was going to turn him in and let him take the blame.
In answer to your other queries:
He was infatuated with her
Forensics showed that the first tramp had also lived with her - maybe she killled him after he was unwilling to help her with the murders
We don't know about the deacon. I can't remember exactly when it happened but in the first episode, he said something like 'I tried to ring you'. Maybe he tried to arrange to do it together but couldn't get hold of her.
You mean Owen tried to ring her?. But they didn't meet until after the Deacons death did they? I need to rewatch it. Did the Deacon die first or the homeless man?. If it was the Deacon, then she doesn't mean Owen until she intentionally drops the tenner to get his attention, minutes after pushing the homeless man onto the track.
I think Jack Roth was amazing in this and when he shaved his head, he looked so much like his dad it was scary. http://postimg.org/image/yx1z80k0f/
>>Thats actually a decent idea - that she was scared that they were going to be caught, and he was worried that she was going to turn him in and let him take the blame.
Yes. Well. Not really. It just plain didn't make sense and that was immediately apparent.
Silent Winess was a totally different series when it first started. More of a straight drama with a social conscience. The way Amanda Burton's character was built up was really a thing of beauty you don't get often.
Now its become just another trashy genre show with over the top violence. The first episode of this series was Wire in the Blood and the second was Cracker. Next week will probably be Luther. Under such circumstances you will get plot howlers like the above.
Whilst I can see what you mean about the "trashy genre show", Nikki & Jack are far too much like cops for my liking, I can see how it would work from the above answers.
I was stumped but my 17 year old daughter got it straight away. She was scared that her plans had been scuppered. Now their plot was exposed as was Owen's face she thought the gig was up. She might have thought "He will Kill me". He might have thought "She is going to have me blamed", why wouldn't he. Pretty Hotel worker vs. Tramp in a "he-said-she said" there is only going to be one winner (See Amanda Knox).
If he was the killer unknown to her and wanted to kill her why stick the weapon to his own throat in a suicide pact.
I thought it was quite good the way they showed each murder up to a point, the point where she did the killing and this was really hinted at when she stabbed the Newsagent. All three of us went (sharp intake of breath) "She's in on it"
Good episode, not as good as Sniper's Nest but on the way up in general from a couple of slumpy seasons.
The whole plot doesn't make sense! I mean... whoooo... the police spots the homeless guy on CCTV when he is following the victims in the tube... ooooh... the game is up! Right? .... So where does Lana come from to strike the final blow? How can she be at the scene of the murders if she didn't follow the victims tot that spot? I mean, she clearly wasn't on the CCTV. Did she just magically teleport in? In the unlikely event that she knew beforehand where the victims would be and waited for them there, why did the homeless guy have to follow the victims in the first place?
She was there but they weren't looking for a woman. It's all about the blinding effect of prejudice. They presumed it was a bloke committing the murders so they were only looking for a bloke. And he was there at both those crime scenes getting off the tube and following behind so they thought they had their culprit and didn't look any further, and he was scruffy and homeless so that was another tick in the guilty box. Once they'd clocked him they were never going to pay any attention to a pretty, petite, well dressed blonde girl, getting off the tube in front of the victims, who didn't look like she could punch her way out of a tissue paper bag. And that was way she needed him in the first place - to be the muscle as the DI said at the end, and as a means of misdirection. In the murder of her former boyfriend, she was in front of him going down that ally way so had obviously got off the tube ahead of him; she knew him, where he lived and had obviously been planning all that happened in advance before finally acting on it, so could quite feasibly have tailed him beforehand to get his journey patterns. People are creatures of habit and don't very often deviate from their normal routine. There would have been a certain amount of chance to the series of events happening as they did, but that's the conceit of TV/Film/Theatre etc. It's a conflagration of possibilities to tell a story and show us something. In this case, don't let preconceptions about people blind you about their capabilities. And also that the unlikeliest of relationships can happen between people you'd never imagine would be together if need/circumstances put them in each others path - despite all you think you know, people will always surprise you.
I never thought the woman in front of the ex-boyfriend was the killer. The thought was obviously that the ex was a rapist ready to strike until he, himself was jumped on, the woman in front turned around and she was the ultimate killer. Brilliant.
Again with the car park killing, if she had done her homework she would know where he parked his car every day and could be waiting, Owen actually follows the guy to make sure nothing is in the way and he does actually follow his routine.
You would think that with the plethora of CCTV cameras in this country and with the multitude of shows (CI channel etc.) that show how killers are caught through mobile phone location technology that people would be a bit smarter and leave your damned 'phone at home if you are off on the prowl. Or do they have a quick round of Plants Vs. Zombies while they are waiting for their victim. The 'phone will get you every time.....
"OOooh, there's my victim.... bing ooh, snapchat, wait a minute, just update my twitter "out murdering 2nite, LOL", right. done. Oh, where is she gone now?"
The Yorkshire Ripper would have caught in days with modern technology....
And I understand her point after watching it again. Notice how Owen is very agitated after each killing and drinks/acts out. If Lana awakened a monster in him, it would make sense that he might be unable to be controlled.
As a woman, this particularly hits home with me. And I think it speaks to the sexual politics of a relationship as intense and dysfunctional as theirs was.
Lana manipulated him, exploiting Owen's yearning for love and acceptance. Maybe he would blame Lana for coercing him to fulfill her plan? Perhaps he feared that since she has the upper hand in the relationship, he alone would be forced to take the blame. I also think he was fearful of losing a very important relationship. And Lana would have sensed all this.
I think this scene is not a red herring at all, but illustrates how complex these characters and their relationship was.
One thing I don't really understand is how she got him to help in the first murder after they had only known each other a few hours? Is it that Owen had only ever known rejection and isolation and as soon as someone shows him kindness and care he'll do anything to keep it? At that point he didn't know about the baby so what did she tell him about why she wanted to kill the deacon?
I rewatched the episodes about 6 times that week figuring everything out about it - I want to watch it again to pick up on the points that people have raised about certain elements of it but can't. The performances from Jack Roth and Leila Mimmick left me emotionally wrung out every time I watched it - don't know if I could do that again!!
I think maybe it wasn't clear that it was just a few hours? But still, for Owen to be the sort of person who would do that, it makes sense to me that he could also be one to do it without much convincing. And yes it wasn't clear what reason Lana gave Owen for her murderous intents at that point.
I thought it was interesting on the rewatch to see Owen be the one encouraging Lana regarding her son. Rewatching Falling Angels is indeed harrowing, but also compelling and addictive!