Fleabag Series 2

Since Fleabag first aired in 2016, creator Phoebe Waller-Bridge has become an international star. Adapting Luke Jenning’s Killing Eve, as well as appearing in Sola: A Star Wars Story, means she is heralded both at home and abroad. For a while it seemed she wouldn’t return to her calling card, feeling there wasn’t the story to warrant a continuation. It appears though a change is as good as a rest; as now Fleabag is back on our screens, bigger and bolder than before.

When we last saw Fleabag she was broken. Every member of her family had dismissed her, rejecting her as vain, selfish, dishonest. All through the series she had been semi-successful in keeping a lid on her emotions. However, the toil and trouble of her past could not be quieted forever; her guilt was always going to boil to the surface. At the end her detached cool lies in a heap; her lies exposed in a flood of tears and mascara. Her friend Boo did not take her life because of a boyfriend’s betrayal, but because of something much worse: Fleabag's. Our heroine had spent six episodes calling people out on their shit, yet was full of it too. Spending hours with her meant we could forgive and forget. The problem is she could not.

Series two opens with a callback to the first. That one began with an address to camera, ‘You know that feeling;’ this one: ‘You know when.’ This doesn’t just feel like superfluous stylism as it does in some sitcoms, rather the representation of Fleabag’s loneliness. Her family don’t share her sense of humour, nor her spiritedness; therefore, she turns to us. If her friend Boo were alive there would be fewer turns to camera. Essentially, we’re the conspirators, the allies, the naughty friends, missing from her life.  Her breaking the fourth wall is less a display, more a reveal. 

She soon catches us up on what’s happened in the intervening 371 days, 19 hours and 26 minutes. It seems she’s taken up exercise, salad  and abstinence. Our Fleabag is fighting fit and resisting all temptation. Cue a family meal with a priest seated at the table. He isn’t like any priest. He’s young, handsome and swears like a heathen. At first Fleabag is unsure about him: is he for real? Over the course of the meal she appreciates him as smart and rude. More like her than the woman he’s marrying. (Marrying in the priest sense, of course. The woman he's marrying? The wicked Godmother played deliciously by Olivia Colman.) That’s why the family have gathered to celebrate the couple’s engagement, and that’s where the episode stays. 

This is not a bottle episode though. (TV parlance for an episode that is shot in a single setting, consisting of just regular cast members, usually because of budgetary or time constraints.) No, this is a showcase for Waller-Bridge’s writing and her sister Isobel’s baroque music. The exit music of the first series is sublime: scuzzy, dirty and boisterous- like the character. The opening music to this is grand, ambitious and operatic; a suggestion that the punk aesthetic will be displaced by classical weight. And whilst the first season dealt in concerns of the flesh, this is more invested in the soul. The priest’s presence means there’s talk of religion and faith; there’s also a meditation on existence when Fleabag’s sister mourns in the toilet (“Get your hands off my miscarriage,” she yells). The tone is darkly funny, yet the priest gives the comedy depth.

Andrew Scott (left) and Phoebe Waller-Bridge

Four episodes in we’re seeing a friendship/relationship develop between the Priest and Fleabag. The interplay between Waller-Bridge and Scott is divine. I’m particularly loving the mischief this series is having with the fourth wall. Whenever Fleabag turns to it, the Priest notes her absence and challenges her on it. ("Where did you go?") This Priest really is all-knowing.  Although her treatment of religion is irreverent, it isn't disrespectful. Yes, in the Priest's service the camera lingers on Christ’s naked torso, mirroring Fleabag’s mind; sure, there's a scene where she reads the Bible in the bath; guilty, she also finds the robes a bit of a turn on – but for all the conflating of sex and religion, the character is genuinely interested in redemption. It’s just the path to redemption comes in hot form.

If series one was tits out rock ‘n’ roll, the follow-up is more contemplative. Typically, the sitcom doesn’t change direction; its familiarity is what keeps people coming back. Fleabag though has an ambition beyond formula. Because of this, it rejects stasis and strives for development. For all the early press about Fleabag being ribald, the show is as funny with its clothes on as it’s off. For me, Waller-Bridge has surpassed her first effort and produced something even more brilliant. Quite an achievement when the first series was so good. (Character breaks out of blog subject to celebrate with readers.)

Fleabag is on BBC1, Monday at 10.35. All episodes are available on iPlayer.

The Language of Kindness

On Friday my mum worked her last shift as a nurse. For the past few years she has worked in a hospice, providing end-of-life care to patients.

She first started nursing when she was eighteen, over forty years ago. Born in Swanage, a quiet seaside town, she moved to suburban Edgware. My mum was living away from home for the first time and her dad had not long passed. The loss of a father, the move to a new town, the start of a new job meant she had to grow up fast.

Training to do anything then was not as easy as it is now. The hours were long with few concessions afforded to students. You had to observe carefully and learn fast. The Sister's rule was law. Iron fists hiding velvet hearts. Meet their standards or meet your Maker. The choice was yours. My mum got through her practice and met my dad. He was in hospital with malaria and saw her on another ward. His Florence Nightingale. The lady with a lamp that lit up his heart. In a fit of romanticism he went over to the nursing quarters and asked her out. They’re still married today.  

"Florence, would you turn that bleeding lantern off. I'm trying to get some sleep."

From there, they moved to Watford where she worked in the hospital for over twenty years. Working with the elderly, she provided dignity when their age could not. Tired and spent by ward work, she moved to a rehabilitation clinic, nursing people of different ages. Her final job was a real challenge. The euphemisms of ‘they had a good innings’ didn’t always apply here. She was seeing young children say goodbye to mothers and fathers. It’s hard to keep going when you’re surrounded by such sadness, but that in many ways is the true test of a nurse: when the Fates have been so cruel, treating kind people with such contempt, it’s down to you to show- however powerless- goodness reigns. The opportunity to give people the best goodbye in the worst situations was a responsibility she never took lightly.

A few months ago, my mum lent me a book, The Language of Kindness: A Nurse’s Story by Christie Watson. I’ve been meaning to start it for a while but I thought this week , given mum was concluding her own story, would be particularly apt. Watson’s first novel Tiny Sunbirds Far Away won the Costa First Novel Award in 2011. Whilst writing her debut she was working at a London teaching hospital. It isn’t until recently that she’s decided to hang up the fob watch and pursue her career as a writer full-time. This book, her third, is a rumination on her time spent working as a nurse.

Author and book.

For the young Christie nursing wasn’t on the horizon. She trumpeted the idea of law, photographer, conservationist and even Jazz trumpeter. Nursing wasn’t the life she saw ahead of her – why? Because it was already in her. Her mum was a social worker, who in one scene brings her work home with her. During a training placement, she invites a group of adults with learning disability into her living room for a drink – they end up stopping for dinner. At first Christie, aged fifteen, is unsure. Over the course of the evening she sees these are no Boo Radleys, quite the opposite, there is tenderness and kindness here: a textbook lesson in not to judge a book by its cover. On quitting school she volunteered for The Spastic Society (what is now known as Scope). Here she was persuaded to induct in nursing (at this time it came with a grant. Imagine that. A grant to support people into an under-staffed, under-paid profession. They were really on to something then). And this was the beginning of a tenure that would take her through hospital corridors, up and down floors, to provide a comprehensive guide as to what it’s like being a nurse.

With This Is Going To Hurt by Adam Kay and Admissions by Henry Marsh, it’s about time nurses' voices reached the mainstream. The aforementioned are superb, offering a behind the curtains glimpse into life as a consultant; however what isn’t always heard is the place nurses play in a patient’s recovery. Their role in the theatre of medicine is less about showmanship and more about craft. They might not have the biggest speech, but their role in the ensemble is vital. A doctor may take the final bow, receive the ovation, sign the autographs at stage door, but in the wings are the people who keep the show on the road.  

Great reads as well, particularly Kay's.

Christie’s book is a marvel because it moves seamlessly between memoir, treatise and polemic. She drips in philosophical quotation and portentous statistics to make her book more than an autobiography. In reading I learnt some things that were truly shocking. For example, I knew suicide was the biggest killer of young men, what I didn’t know was domestic violence was the biggest killer of young women. I discovered that the Government want 21,000 more mental health nurses, but aren’t prepared to pay a grant to attract them. I learnt that over a million people are expected to have dementia by 2025. Christie’s drops in these hand grenades, then runs for cover behind her anecdotes. The result is we learn by stealth. You never feel it’s preachy, whilst recognising that something has to be done.

Her journey across specialisms means she is well qualified to talk about many areas of nursing. However her concentration in intensive care give her stories real gravitas: this is life and death. In one memory Jasmin, a little girl, is in with smoke inhalation. Her mother is already dead. Aware that she hasn’t got long, her aunt asks for a priest. He’s not going to make it in time. Christie assumes the role and baptises the child. Despite being trained medical professionals, priest isn’t the only role they have to adopt. Nurses are cleaners, administrators, mathematicians, dream-catchers and counsellors. Although it seems like nurses deal in biology, psychology is as important. To keep someone’s spirits up in the sterile atmosphere of a hospital is perhaps the heaviest lifting they perform.

I’m grateful for this book as it has helped me understand the woman who raised me. What she’s done for others. What she’s done for me. I salute Christie for celebrating this noble profession. Nurses like my mum have read it and felt proud of the job they do. And in a world where they’re under-appreciated, these pick-me-ups are needed more than ever. Ultimately, Christie's memoir is a phrase book on kindness; a reminder we must do all we can to support those already fluent in it.

The Language of Kindness by Christie Watson is available now.

Home

Yesterday was an ugly day for society. A member of the far-right opened fire on a New Zealand mosque killing at least forty-nine people. The Australian Senator Fraser Anning said, “whilst this kind of violent vigilantism can never be justified, what it highlights is the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing Muslim presence.” Further he went on to describe Islam as the “religious equivalent of fascism.” How a man can blame growing fear then contribute to it beggars belief. Today, Anning was egged by a teenager –even vegans will concede, I’m sure, the egg was not wasted.

But this is where we are. We’re living in a time where people seem devoid of empathy. Now politicians aren’t ostracised for pillorying minorities, but elected.  This is exacerbated by social media, which gives people free rein to say what they want about strangers. We’re living in ignorant times where cowards speak in caps lock drowning out tolerant voices. It happened a few years ago with the migrant crisis. In this climate of hate, the columnist Katie Hopkins said migrant boats should be blown out of the water. Men, women, children fleeing terror – and that’s your response. Around the same time, Nigel Farage launched a Brexit poster that depicted a queue of refugees with the headline, ‘Breaking Point.’ If there was an image that best illustrated the unkind times we live in, it is this. Victims of war being treated like a swarm of locusts. The dark episodes of history have not been learned; we’re in danger of repeating them again.

In the foreground: a person unwelcome in Europe.

Humanity can be found in strange places though. Channel 4, a broadcaster known more for edgy comedies, has produced a feel-good sitcom on immigration. Penned by Rufus Jones, the show’s genesis lies in a 2016 Guardian article. In it, the journalist Helen Pidd wrote about inviting a Syrian refugee, Yasser Al Jassem, to stay. She met him through a friend and was upset to hear how he had two options: sleep in a homeless shelter or an overcrowded house. Not wanting him to take either, she created her own and had him stay with her. Together, the two struck up a friendship, which saw Pidd invite Yasser to spend Christmas with the family. The article never felt like virtue-signalling because she outlined the challenges of sharing a house with a stranger: would he be ok with her eating a bacon butty? Could she express disappointment that he hadn’t sourced a paid job? (He was volunteering every day.) Where do you source an halal turkey? Yasser too spoke of his surprise that he had a female landlady, something that wouldn’t happen in Syria. Jones read the article and enjoyed the odd couple dynamic: a premise was born.

Home begins with the Peter, Katy and John returning from a family holiday in France. There is some tension here. John is less than impressed with Peter. He’s not at all sure of his mum’s new boyfriend, making his disdain pretty plain. Katy brushes this off as adolescence – or as she describes it – 'three years of Pornhub and silence.’ Pulling into the drive, they’re home sweet home. Vacating the car, Peter hears a sound. A sound coming from the boot. Champagne doesn’t sound like this. Piqued, he goes around to investigate. His hunch is right. There is a man in the back. There’s a terrorist in the boot. This, however, isn’t a alt-right children’s book, but a living, breathing manifestation - or so Peter thinks. Frightened, he locks the car and scurries to the front door to call 999. The immigrant has an ace up his sleeve though: Peter’s champagne bottle. If Peter makes a wrong move, the upholstery gets it. Middle-class to the core, he drops his weapon and negotiates with the 'terrorist.'

Youssef Kerkour is Sami (centre). Rufus Jones plays Peter (right).

The man in the boot is not a terrorist. He is Sami. He has come on a long journey to be here. Yes, he’s disappointed it’s Dorking, but frankly anywhere is better than home. He escaped Syria with his family but became separated in Italy. He has travelled across the world to be with the family, yet Peter is reluctant to lay out the welcome mat. The lovely irony in the sitcom is that Peter is as much a guest in the home. His surname is Guest and he feels like one. Having only been in a relationship with Katy for ten months, he’s trying to make it his home as well. He, therefore, sees Sami as a threat, perhaps an unwanted mirror too. Katy, on the other hand, bonds with Sami: she’s happy to learn that he’s a teacher just like her. She also warms to his personality: he has a wonderful line in sarcasm, describing how school in Syria hasn’t been so good lately what with children playing ‘truant.’ An argument later outlines the couple’s differences:

                   Katy: He’s lost and alone and he needs our help.

                  Peter: He’s not Paddington.

                  Katy: That’s exactly what he is.  

For Peter, Sami is the headline in the right-wing press; for Katy, a feature in a broadsheet. He wants to take back control, whereas she wants to open borders. The Paddington reference is no accident either: Home owes a debt to Paddington. There are moments in the first episode that allude to the film, what with Sami causing mischief in the bathroom and kitchen. It has the parallel of the woman and child warming to him, whereas the man sees him as a rival. Although being an adult sitcom, it has bite too.

In the second episode there is a brilliant scene with Sami in the newsagents. The shopkeeper Raj is talking him through British newspapers. On one pile he puts the papers that likes ‘Sami,’ on the other ones that don’t. Sami asks, ‘which ones sell the most? Both are disappointed by the answer. In a thirty second scene, Jones lays bare the root of racism: so long as vitriol outstrips compassion, we will live in a society that makes scapegoats out of innocents.

On this my 200^th blog, Home is a reason to be cheerful. It promotes kindness and understanding at a time when people are getting away with lies and bigotry. As To Kill a Mockingbird’s Atticus Finch says, ‘You never really understand someone until you consider things from his point of view …until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.’ For thirty minutes every week, there’s a small corner of Channel 4 where we can do that. Being in Sami’s skin is a valuable place to be; I urge you to climb in.

Home is on 9.45pm, Tuesday on Channel 4.

Previous episodes are available on All4  

This Time with Alan Partridge

Alan Partridge has seen it all. Appearing first in BBC’s On The Hour in 1991, Alan’s career has had more ups and downs than a snakes and ladders set. From here, he went on to have his own Radio 4 chat show where he interviewed France’s second-best Formula One driver and a nine year-old Oxford prodigy. With his star on the rise, Alan made like Jeremy Vine, transferring from radio to TV. His big band chat show though came to a dissonant close when he punched a BBC commissioner in the face. Exiled into the wilderness, he became a night owl, occupying the graveyard slot on Radio Norwich. Despite wowing tens of listeners, it wasn’t enough to convince bosses to keep him on mainstream radio; as a result, he joined the roster of North Norfolk Digital. Along with Sidekick Simon the pair made mid mornings matter. What Alan really wanted though was to come home. As the home of British Broadcasting, the BBC is where great British broadcasters belong. Alan is one such broadcaster. So despite a short stay on Sky Atlantic (watched only by Rupert Murdoch and his eldest son), Alan dreamt of a day when the nation’s corporation would come calling.

Fortunately for Alan the host of magazine show This Time is gravely ill, so he gets the call. It’s taken him twenty-five years, but finally he’s back where he belongs: on prime-time television. Understandably, he’s nervous: his mouth drier than a nun’s unmentionables; he needs water and he needs it now. Next to him is Jennie Gresham, a consummate professional, a handbrake to Partridge’s off-road presenting. With her as co-driver, there’s a chance this vehicle won’t go crash, bang, wallop. After all, Alan needs it to succeed. He’s a short-term replacement, there on probation; a digital personality on day(s) release. Mess this up and it’s back to the big house- by that I mean little house of local radio. Get it right and he’ll be re-admitted into media society. A lot is at stake.

********************************************************************************

The first episode of This Time is a mix bag. For me the first episode had moments but didn’t knit together as a whole. This isn’t the end of the world. Since the magazine format is segmented, you're never waiting long for the next 'sketch'. For example, the seal pups section at the beginning, where Partridge interviews a naturalist, doesn’t elicit that many laughs; however a later one on gambling really does. Also, it’s worth remembering that it’s an establishing episode. There’s signs early on that Alan’s relationship with Jennie will become fraught. Off-air he makes an alliterative quip and debates whether to say it live; she shakes her disapproval. On-air Jennie lifts the line and scores laughter from the crew. Later, they question a reporter on betting terminals: every question Alan asks is met by dismissal, whilst Jennie’s re-wording of these is met with the contrary The on-screen dynamic works beautifully between the pair as it sets up two things: conflict between the characters and the audience’s sympathy for Alan. Jennie is made for television: she’s conventionally attractive, intelligent, a safe personality. Conversely, Alan is awkward, loose-lipped, a hazard around live tv.

We root for Alan as well because he’s grown up. When Steve Coogan considered bringing Partridge out of hiatus, he thought of how to do him differently. He enlisted the Gibbons brothers, Neil and Rob, to work on the new incarnation. Being fans of 90’s Alan, the pair wanted to remain loyal to the character, whilst having him reflect his older age. Thus, the Partridge of the last ten years has been altogether more nuanced than that of the 90’s. Some would argue that in striving towards verisimilitude, the character has lost some of his comic punch – less Basil Fawlty now, more David Brent – in other words, he appears more documentary than sitcom. It’s true there is now more pathos. He doubts his ability at the start of this episode and is hurt by a cyberhacker’s expose later on. Alan is no longer the larger-than-life flat character of catchphrase and delusion; he is rounded by nuance and awareness instead. That’s not to say Alan can’t make a complete balls of things. See how a solitary thought on toileting leads to a two minute act out: however  this Alan knows what he’s doing is wrong. Before the comedy of Alan rested in him being a monster; now it lies in him being human.

In my opinion, the second episode is stronger. Alan is less tentative here, maybe reflecting his growing confidence in getting through his first show. It begins with Partridge going ‘off-grid’ in his eulogy to This Time host, John Baskell. Buoyed by the news of a competitor’s death, Alan gives the viewer a heartfelt metaphor about a distressed pigeon placated by a train set. The metaphor of course being that This Time provides a vital distraction to its viewers. Public service broadcasting in all senses of the term. Between features Lynn, Alan’s PA, appears. In the first episode she was utilised well; in this one hilariously. If Alan is becoming more complex, we need secondary characters that retain their buffoonery. Lynn is worried that Alan is being upstaged by Jennie, therefore she channels her inner-Lady Macbeth, urging him to vanquish her: ‘Fortune favours the bold. The time is upon us.’ Her life is intertwined with Alan’s. He has made a concubine of her, achieved subjugation. His domination has led to Stockholm Syndrome where instead of resenting her captor, she'll do anything for him. His failure is hers. His success hers. Vicariously, she lives through him.

Another returning character is Sidekick Simon (Tim Key). Again, this was a better segment than the previous episode. Here, the two look at a UK map, which lights up as tweets come in. It reminds Alan of air strikes. Together the two ruminate on what would happen if Britain’s livestock was struck. It’s another wonderful moment of surrealism that harks back to I’m Alan Partridge. The difference is it’s done more quietly and isn’t shouted at you. Despite really enjoying this scene, I don’t think Tim Key works so well here. Given the rest feels so believable, it doesn’t sit right that Alan could bring one of his parochial mates over to live TV. It’s a minor quibble, but I do think it would work better with a different character in that role.

I looked for a picture that would illustrate my above point, but couldn't find it, thence this image.

Earlier I alluded to the mixed response and wanted to address that before I go. It appears the broadsheets have received the new series well, whilst some fans haven’t. The second episode was down by over a million on the first. There’s always a drop-off on the premier, but rarely this large. What I would say is this comedy belongs on BBC2. After twenty-five years it makes sense that the corporation wanted to lay out the red carpet and logo for him, yet this isn’t mainstream comedy. This Time is layered, intricate and very subtle. It’s the one comedy since Stewart Lee’s Comedy Vehicle that I’ve felt compelled to  re-watch immediately. And watch again you should. Because if you do, you’ll notice new and hilarious things. In the first episode, Alan walks the streets of London reporting on hygiene; off-camera a man chides, ‘Partridge, you wanker.’ (I missed it first time round.) In the second episode a pre-recorded feature fails to pick up Alan suppressing a burp. (Like the fictional production crew, I missed it too.) These are small things, but as with all comedy the devil is in the detail.

If you want comedy that’s going to be rammed home to you – like a block of cheese, you mothers – this isn’t for you. If you’re prepared to pay attention and appreciate quiet brilliance, you’ll be more than pleased. First class comedy!

This Time with Alan Partridge is on BBC One, Monday at 9.30.

This Time with Alan Partridge is available now.

Three Identical Strangers

Many of you will be familiar with Willy Russell’s musical Blood Brothers. With a storyline centred on twins separated at birth, it became the third longest running musical in West End history. Theatregoers returned again and again, drawn to the nature vs nurture debate that propels the story. Having the brothers adopted into different families: one from the inner-city, one from the suburbs, we see how upbringing affects opportunity. Conversely, we see within both an innate charm, along with a hot-headedness that has huge ramifications late on. Lionel Shriver’s book We Need To Talk About Kevin deals with a similar topic, questioning whether a mother should be held responsible for her son’s destructive behaviour. Was he born bad? Or did his environment make him so? Nature vs nurture has fascinated artists and observers for years. Many find the notion of nature's supremacy frightening, suggesting as it does how our lives are predetermined, resting in the hands of genetic Gods; powerless to its might, wherever we turn we return to the same place, constricted through chromosome, contained in code. Nature denies the idea that love and industry can alter essence, making someone happier and healthier. If nature is all, then there’s no need for psychology or counselling: you can’t escape who you are so why bother.

From different side of the tracks: Blood Brothers.

Three Identical Strangers is a staggering documentary from Channel 4. Directed by Tim Wardle, the remarkable story begins in an unremarkable setting: Sullivan Country Community College. A nineteen year old arrives for his first day in a new place. Rarely popular, often reserved, he’s a little nervous about the whole thing. As soon as he’s in the block though, something strange happens. He’s greeted by all and sundry. Backslapped and kissed like there’s no tomorrow. “It’s great to have you back.” “ I thought you’d left.” “Catch you later, Eddie.” 

There's just one problem.

His name is not Eddie – it’s Bobby. 

Why are people calling him the wrong name? Why do they think they’ve seen him before? Why is he being greeted like a returning captain when he’s making his debut? Finally a student comprehends the confusion and asks him if he’s a twin. Bobby was adopted and has an older sister, but doesn’t have a twin. The student, Michael, thinks differently. He grabs Bobby and races him down to the callbox, loading the receiver with quarters to confirm his hunch. The voice that Bobby hears on the other line is his. The tone, intonation, idiosyncrasies all his own. However, this is no echo; this is another voice. The voice on the other line is Eddie – Bobby’s brother.

The twins enlist another member.

Soon Bobby and Eddie are re-united. They discover that the were both adopted into different families, not many miles apart. It isn’t long before the press hear the sound of headlines and descend on them. With that, the two men are catapulted into the newspapers. A feel-good story of long-lost newly-found. Every breakfast table reads the story, smiling into its coffee. One kitchen sees something familiar and alerts David Kellman, a student at Queen’s College. He looks into the photo and sees a mirror. He is the spit of Bobby Shafran and Eddie Galland. He has turned a duo into a trio, twins to triplets.

With the three men now together, the story gets bigger. They are on every chat show in America, being interviewed by everyone in the land. Desperate to make up for lost time, they move into a New York bachelor pad, creating a whole heap of pizza boxes and mischief along the way. With their brand rising, they set up a restaurant where people come from miles wide to meet and eat with them. In the first year the take home is $1 million – not bad for a family business.

At the height of their fame, the three boys had a cameo in Madonna's Desperately Seeking Susan. (She's the one on the left.)

Whilst they enjoy themselves, their families are less pleased. They are angry that the boys grew up apart. None of the parents kept the brothers from each other: they had no idea their adopted boys were one of three. Isn’t it also strange that their children had such different lives? David was born into a loving blue-collar neighbourhood, his dad an avuncular shopkeeper; Eddie’s family is middle-class, his father a strict teacher; Bobby's a prominent upscale family, his dad an out-of-town physician, his mum a solicitor. All three brothers, identical in birth, are from separate worlds. 

The parents go to the adoption agency looking for answers and are met by evasion and misdirection. It isn’t until a journalist happens upon a find that an extraordinary history emerges. What starts off being a fun feature piece becomes an expose on corrupt institutions. A film that begins about identical appearances turns into a deeper examination of research ethics and genetic determinism. The film is unbelievable. Prepare to have your breath taken away.

Three Identical Strangers is available on All 4