"Peter" moves from one scene to the next with no narrative thread and few guideposts as to what each scene is. Is it a real event from Sutcliffe's life? Is it a story he's fabricated for others? For himself? Is it something from his dreams? From his disturbed mind? Aside from actual news footage and what to appear to be reenactments of interviews, the film gives almost no guidance.
"Peter" tells the story of Sutcliffe only in scattered pieces too small to form a whole. The rest, presumably meant to be a window into his psyche, also fails because we are given no cues to what is real, what is imagination, what is fantasy. I'm baffled as to how anyone approved "Peter" for broadcast. It was certainly a waste of my time.
"Peter" tells the story of Sutcliffe only in scattered pieces too small to form a whole. The rest, presumably meant to be a window into his psyche, also fails because we are given no cues to what is real, what is imagination, what is fantasy. I'm baffled as to how anyone approved "Peter" for broadcast. It was certainly a waste of my time.