Spooks: The conspiracy theory

By Remote Control on Dec 9, 08 03:53 PM

AND so it came to pass - the end of the seventh series of Spooks. And, as the risk of incurring the wrath of those who insist on calling it government propaganda - it was simply superb.

The best series so far? I'd say so. After reverting back to its "one plot an episode" rather than dragging an issue out over the series, Spooks was back to its best. The early death of Adam, unexpected as it was, set the tone for the series.

Did you have money on Connie being a traitor? Didn't the writers do a superb job of convincing us that she was, then she wasn't and then it turned out she was again. And just to play with our moral compasses a bit more, she turned out to be the star of the show when she deactiviated a Russian nuclear bomb in a disused underground station.

Ok, so reading the last sentence back again does rather prove that all belief has to be suspended when watching Spooks - even the cast are the first to admit they have no idea if their version of the secret service bears any similarities with the real MI5 and MI6. (Apparently they did employ ex-spies as advisors for the first series, but all they ever said was "We can't tell you" when asked if the plots were realistic).

When I last wrote about Spooks, a comment was posted on the blog suggesting it was all UK progaganda, paid for by the Government. Strictly speaking, it's paid for by us, the licence-fee payer, and my commonsense head says the Government wouldn't gain much from a propoganda-led drama. But here's a drama which has to be filmed months in advance, yet still managed to hit on a storyline which involved a Russian-backed financier trying to bring the London stock exchange to its knees by betting against British banks. Take out the Russian element of the last sentence and does it sound a tad familiar? The only think missing out of the Spooks version against the problems faced by our banks was the voice of Robert Peston.

And, indeed, the worsening relationship with Russia? Timely, to say the least. Just like the last series, when our simmering problems with Iran came to the fore just as Spooks aired. There's a wonderful myth in the Press lobby at Parliament that one of the Press is actually a member of secret services getting a flavour of what is being talked about and getting it into print. I'm not saying it's true, but it's certainly fodder for the conspiracy theorists to get to work on.

So, to the fate of Harry, who, as one of the few suriving members of the original Spooks cast, has firmly cemented his place as the true star of Spooks. These sexy, glamorous, dare-doing spies may come and go (often in dramatic ways) but Harry's always been safe, taking calculated risks but ultimately always remaining in control.

But this series he's been accused of being Russian spy (wrong, it was Connie), and having pursaded the Russian secret services to call off their attempts to kill his team because in killing his team, the spies would inadvertently allow renegade Russians to set off a nuclear bomb in London, Harry found himself being zipped up inside a body bag, gagged, next to what appeared to be a helicopter.

A gripping end. The sort of ending which keeps you thinking about the programme the next day. SImply superb. These fly in, fly out spies, they may die - but Harry. Would they really, really kill off Harry? I suspect not, but now he's in the hands of the Russians, perhaps real-life events over the next couple of months between the West and East will determine Harry's fate as they set about filming series eight. Perhaps. Or perhaps the writers of Spooks know what we all know - there are certain characters you just can't kill off. Like Grisholm in CSI, a Spooks with Harry would struggle to keep going.