This was released just before our NOW subscription expired, allowing us to quickly binge-watch it. Which was nice.
"Lockerbie: A Search for Truth" is a 5-part mini-series around the Lockerbie bombing and the aftermath therefore, based primarily on a book written by Jim Swire. Colin Firth plays Swire.
So... where to start.
(Oh, yes, there are spoilers, I guess. But since it's a historical drama, I'm not sure they count.)
Firstly, it's extremely well made, especially the scenes of the disaster itself in the first episode. The cast are very strong, with Firth giving a standout performance. And, more than anything else, it probably bears the closest comparison with "Chernobyl", which I also watched on NOW a few years ago. So that's all to the good.
But...
Somewhere around the middle of the third episode, Swire becomes absolutely convinced that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is not guilty of the crime for which he is later convicted, and the second half of the mini-series follows on from there. All of which is his prerogative, of course.
Unfortunately, the sequence of events as depicted in the show just doesn't work - as presented, the prosecution case utterly falls apart, with just about every witness shown being extremely unreliable, key details coming to light to show that the conviction cannot be safe, and eventually a climactic moment as Swire attempts to bring the whole thing down.
My key problem being with that being that if things did indeed go down that way, there is absolutely no way the judges who were serving as the jury in the trial could have failed to see the problems. Meaning that the only real explanation is an almighty miscarriage of justice - either rank incompetence by five of our most learned judges or outright corruption. I'm afraid that neither of those sits right with me.
(The other thing is that much is made of the logical contradiction of only Abdelbaset al-Megrahi being convicted for the crime - Swire's argument being that the crime was only possible if both the accused were guilty. There's a key problem there: it just isn't so. Consider this: yes, as described, the Lockerbie bombing could not be the work of Megrahi alone, as he didn't have the required airport access. However, that doesn't mean that it required Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, his co-accused, to provide that access - there were others who could have done so. So the "logical contradiction" is not necessarily anything of the kind - the "jury" could feel that the case against Megrahi was sufficient to convict him while also feeling that Fhimah hadn't been sufficiently identified as the co-conspirator.)
I should make note at this point that I make no criticism of Jim Swire in all this - my strong suspicion is that the relevant scenes were heavily edited for dramatic effect, which worked, but at the cost of losing some of the critical nuance.
Anyway, the upshot of all of this is that the second half of the drama doesn't work anywhere near as well as the first. Which is a shame. Also, barring an intervention by President Trump, I think it's unlikely that we'll ever know the full and unvarnished truth, which is an even bigger shame.
So, do I recommend the show? Hesitantly, I say yes.
#2: "The Ultimate Discworld Companion", by Terry Pratchett and Stephen Briggs