Some notes and dialogue on first watching.
“This programme contains strong language..”
And staring I suggest/ It should say.
Detective on scene to Sandra:
“House number three, a teenage girl”
“And urn remains..!”
Paul: (after staring some)
I forgot and then remembered why Sandra is limping.
Sandra’s Detective partner explains some of the plot.
Sandra and Paul.
“Did Grobier say anything?”
“He said, tell Paul the ghosts are back”..
“Gorbier wants you to suffer..”
Then. (inside the show-home)
“My son drew that..”
Du na du nahh.. (representation of ominous music)
Sandrine’s Detective Partner:
“Qu’est-ce qui se passe?”
“What’s going on?”
Sandra doesn’t answer him.
Max and the gathered Detectives:
“Paul, he’s been to visit you..”
Young girl to Sandra:
“My father’s ashes were on the mantel..”
“I went out into the garden, that’s when I saw the wolf..”
So that’s two lots of funky music now. The first lot was minorly funky the second being louder.
So it’s not really news what’s wrong with Sandra,
Sooo back to the bathroom mirror. And Sandra staring.
Sandra to her boyfriend:
Did you notice I changed my lipstick?”
Still with the lipstick.
Other Detective researcher to Sandra:”Laurence Vanderbilt..”
I’m trying to maintain an interest in the plot/s.
Detective to Sandra:
“A bistro, Le Tribal..”
Sandra and her Detective partner are on a (short) stake-out. Sandra stares upwards. That is one of her detecting skills. Staring upwards.
A weird musical and dramatic interlude. Where Sandra stalks a certain Vanderbilt.
She’s gonna turn out to be his sister.
So off to another house. Quite a gorgeous one really.
Young boy to Sandrine’s Detective partner:
“Sometimes I dream of him, that he comes to me at night..”
Back to the brown and white cliffs of France. A car drives along the top.
So the rooftop of the Police Station building is cool.
Man and the interviewer:
“I was a good husband and father during the day..”
“But at night (he brightens) I was a wolf among wolves..”
Sandra to young woman:
“Fred was telling me you’re a Maxillolabial specialist”! Great word.
So Sandra finds out why Paul Maisonneuve is being targeted. By the mad murderer.
Paul to the young woman, Laura,:
“Hear anything about a man with a wolf?”!
Lovely night time shots. Blue and green The beautiful house.
It’s near the end of the episode. That means some major action is about to occur. Warning sinister cello music is playing.
(marching band plays)
Something’s about to go horribly wrong.
So Witnesess is getting a little bit good.
Paul Maisonneuve is turning out to be the classic hard-arsed/ nosed maverick Detective. Like Robert De Niro back in the day. Or Client Eastwood as Dirty Harry.
But wait, Sandrine is staring upwards. It’s a clue. Happy Jovial crowds are always a good counterpoint to unexpected evil.
Sandra is popping up in the funicular. (railway) With a gun in her hand.
Now she’s up against a much bigger gun..
“Drop your gun, do you hear me?”
So there’s you-know-who (mad murderer) sitting in the attic and eating his lunch. (sandwiches)
Now he’s doing something rather unusual..
So I was hoping to declare Les Temoins/ Witnesses as tolerable. Rather than tolerable: tosh. I think I can say that now. Mainly due to the drama lively-ing itself up a bit in the shape of Sandra shouting a bit and shooting some. As in some shooting. Plus, she ran around a bit.
Certainly all of this described is a lot more lively than anything that has gone before.
I mean when the corpses have started to take on a funny air: I might ask myself why I am looking at the corpses. Instead of the people. Even possibly finding them interesting. In comparison. Or is that taking an analogy too far.
Yes all this hypothesising may well be too cruel. However there is something strangely stilted in the performance of the drama. As if we were uncomfortably listening in on real life: through a peep-hole.
Yes, there are moments when this realistic filming style of an ongoing documentary worked. The drama briefly became engaging. In a faux-realistic way. When reality struggles with the dramatic.
This slow motion filming and therefore storytelling style has a curiously time warping effect. Appearing to draw out the action of a scene for forever endless tine periods/ zones. It’s all most odd.
Thing is: none of this hand-held camera in the room kind of style is realistic anyway. Time does go slowly sometimes in real life. But not that damn slowly. That is all I’m saying.
I mean I found myself conjecturing whilst watching Witnesses/ Les Temoins: does anybody really stand just staring (doing nothing) for that length of time? In real life or in a drama. Well not in real life. Not that long. But in a drama of course: all bets are off.
I guess one could say Witnesses has created it’s own time zone. In a dramatic reality. Which is carefully constructed to appear real.
Meanwhile beautiful scenery glides by.
None of the above described time-warp effect of the hand held camera style of the film would matter if that creation works. (For the viewer)
If that was the case and I believed in that creation of the drama: then I wouldn’t be musing about time zones. Distractedly. And doodling.