The acting in this opening episode of the new series of The Accused was superb, but the whole premise of the story was seriously flawed. Jimmy McGovern appears to have little knowledge of the subject he is writing about. Most transvestites are straight and enjoy the experience of cross dressing with their female partners, and not just for sexual gratification. Cross dressers do frequent gay bars but only because it enables them to drink in a non- threatening environment. The idea that a man like Simon/Tracie (Sean Bean) would drink in a city-centre bar dressed like a cross between Mae West and Madonna is totally ludicrous. What planet is Mr McGovern living on? It was not made clear exactly what Tony (Stephen Graham) was doing when he visited Tracie. Were they having sex, if yes then why not show it (perhaps McGovern didn't know what they would do to each other). But why would Tracie start a relationship with what was obviously a married man without discussing it and laying down some ground rules? It just lacks credibility. But perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this whole charade was the fact that Tracie was having a relationship with a psychopath who would rather violently stab his wife to death than tell her than he is gay - and not just an ordinary gay man but one who likes older men in unconvincing drag. Add to this ridiculous courtroom scene when Tracie addressed the court in full drag and you have all the makings of a really bad drama.
There were so many embarrassing moments in this grubby little play: The scene where Tony tells Tracie he will only be seen out with her if she looks more convincing as a woman, the scene where Tracie visits Tony's wife for a makeover and stares at her breasts and the fact that Tracie agreed to go away with Tony after he publicly humiliated him. What does it all mean? It means that Jimmy McGovern is a lazy writer and should do his research properly. I feels sorry for the actors who are no doubt proud of their performances but should really have looked at the bigger picture.
The problem with a lot of McGovern's scripts is that he can't make up his mind what he is writing about. In this case Transvestism or murder. He takes a controversial subject or story (no doubt lifted from the pages of a Sunday newspaper, in this from 1978 judging by the out-of-date concept) and twists it to suit his limited experience. If he seriously wanted to write about cross-dressing then why not talk to some real cross-dressers and use their experience to tell the story. That would certainly be a lot more realistic that this tosh.
There were so many embarrassing moments in this grubby little play: The scene where Tony tells Tracie he will only be seen out with her if she looks more convincing as a woman, the scene where Tracie visits Tony's wife for a makeover and stares at her breasts and the fact that Tracie agreed to go away with Tony after he publicly humiliated him. What does it all mean? It means that Jimmy McGovern is a lazy writer and should do his research properly. I feels sorry for the actors who are no doubt proud of their performances but should really have looked at the bigger picture.
The problem with a lot of McGovern's scripts is that he can't make up his mind what he is writing about. In this case Transvestism or murder. He takes a controversial subject or story (no doubt lifted from the pages of a Sunday newspaper, in this from 1978 judging by the out-of-date concept) and twists it to suit his limited experience. If he seriously wanted to write about cross-dressing then why not talk to some real cross-dressers and use their experience to tell the story. That would certainly be a lot more realistic that this tosh.