A Very Royal Scandal

A Very Royal Scandal is much better than Scoop. Like Gillian Anderson as Scoop’s Maitlis, Wilson delivers a distractingly deep voice, but unlike Anderson she doesn’t go the full Beeb-ordained Darth Vader. Wilson also brings light and shade to a complicated woman in an ethically complicated situation.

Though the interview is the turning point in the narrative, and takes place in Episode 2, it’s not what’s most intriguing about the show. Instead, amid the muted tones of the palace and the haunting sounds of a clock ticking in the background, “A Very Royal Scandal” offers a master class in perception.

Ms. Wilson gives her [Emily Maitlis] an unceasing energy that is quite convincing. .... Prince Andrew, who in Mr. Sheen’s hands becomes a contemptible yet pitiful figure. .... And all moral arguments aside, this is simply great television. It justifies itself.

It is not perfect, but it is highly entertaining and, in my opinion, a better piece of television than Scoop.

While nothing in “A Very Royal Scandal” is particularly eye-opening (except for what happened to Maitlis after that interview), it’s worth the watch to see two actors at the top of their game.

While it’s a far more satisfying version of this story than the one retold in Scoop, A Very Royal Scandal may suffer from coming out second and relitigating (very recent) history.

A Very Royal Scandal takes an event from the very recent past and gives it some fascinating context, aided by good performances from Sheen, Wilson and Scanlan.

For two hours, A Very Royal Scandal is tightly cut and smartly observed and strategized without being revelatory, despite Maitlis’ direct involvement. .... The final hour, the one meant to reflect on the significance of the cultural moment and its aftermath, is faultier in its approach.

A Very Royal Scandal does a good job of showing all perspectives and putting this specific situation into a greater context that questions right and wrong. Ultimately, it leaves the drawing of conclusions to the viewer.

Anyone who watches the full interview could rightly wonder, “How could you be so stupid to sit for an interview like this and say things like that?” “Royal” does a thorough, energetic, juicy-but-serious job of answering. And yet, the show can’t escape its own admission that there are much bigger questions one could ask about rape, misogyny, money, secrecy and power. Maitlis has a pat monologue about the injustice of it all, but the call is coming from inside the mini-series.

Like Maitlis, A Very Royal Scandal handles itself with comportment and class, but as a drama, it is too frictionless for its own good.

As entertainment, character study and thematic exploration, A Very Royal Scandal largely works. However, the former is somewhat diminished, a little unfairly, by this show being second to the punch. To its benefit, it doesn't reach for easy answers, even if the lack of answers may be frustrating.

Most absent from the drama is a proper discussion about, firstly, the impact of the allegations on the victim, Giuffre, and, secondly, the myriad other victims of Epstein’s abuse. Only in the third episode does it transition from journalistic cat and mouse to an introspection on one of the most shocking abuses of power in modern history.

Maitlis is portrayed as a somewhat scatterbrained albeit serious journalist, constantly running late and misplacing shoes as she juggles work and family, while Andrew comes across as boorish, offensive, and woefully disconnected from the real world. Among Sheen’s several excellent impersonations of real-life figures in both television and film, his interpretation of Prince Andrew as a petulant uncle feels phoned-in and thinly sketched. .... It’s only in the last of the three episodes that the series touches on anything that could be described as revelatory.

The original interview was a television spectacle but its impact in the grand scheme of things was limited. For A Very Royal Scandal to be more than a flimsy footnote, it needed to tell us more than what we already knew.