1 out of 5

Created by: Ruth Fowler

Amazing. Prestige produced, with some good actors – especially the child actors – and then an almost hilarious miscalculation of storytelling all around.

I’ll deny it here and there, but I know I’ve got some contrariness in me, and when something gets really poorly reviewed – and it’s within genres I consume – I’ll get all haughty and think I might be able to see something others aren’t. With Little Disasters that willfulness was especially on the ready, as what was cited as an issue – using child endangerment as the focus – don’t bother me none. I’m not a parent; I don’t have any sensitivities towards them being used as plot motivators in shows / movies, assuming it’s at least relevant / competently done. I mean, that’s still an overused trope (save the children!), but Disasters’ uses the “mystery” of who physically abused Jess’ (Diane Kruger) baby as its kick-off, and the reviews I read were taking it to task for even starting there. Is it shallow? Maybe, but maybe there’s a story there, and it’s just difficult for some viewers to get over that initial narrative hump.

Spoiler: there… isn’t a story there. Or there is, but creator Ruth Fowler and co-writer Amanda Duke seemingly had no clue what it was, and so threw a few tragedy-porn drama elements into the mix – start with a shocking incident; do look-at-the-camera character interviews; circle around through characters’ drama-filled pasts; hint at unhappy marriages all around – and then have the gall to kind of turn the mystery into a serious issue, and then whip out a twist that renders the whole thing stupid as hell. I can’t. Normally I can; normally I can revel in some aspects; but this is a weird one where you can tell from near the start that no one really knows what the focus is, and by the time they maaaybe find one, it feels like a big Duh that approximates to a modern doctor just discovering that germs cause illnesses. Possibly it’s funny that this discovery is found through a Google search, leading to a possibly bonkers meta knock on our surface-level interactions with those around us, and the fleeting nature of world-changing events, but absolutely not is that a real thing the show was doing.

So Jess is a perfect housemum, coded as conservative, with a busy husband (JJ Feild) who’s always out of the house and doesn’t understand what her problem is with taking care of three kids – including a newborn – alone. Jess shows up at Emergency with her youngest with a head wound, and her friend, Liz (Jo Joyner), is the in-taking doctor. Recognizing signs of abuse, Liz has no choice but to call social services, and soon enough, Jess is separated from her children while an investigation is conducted, completely blowing up their friend group.

Setting aside the “shock” of the crying child as our initial, lingering image, this is definitely an acceptable setup: Jess is oddly quiet about what’s happened, though maintains she did not abuse her child (or neglect the child, and allow it to be injured). The investigation begins to find other signs of abuse, and Liz’s separation from the friend group deepens, as does her drinking issue. Oh, if you’re expecting that to matter, another spoiler: it doesn’t. Neither does friend Mel’s (Emily Taaffe) financial troubles with her hubby, or Charlotte’s (Shelley Conn) distaste for her husband’s push for children. Are there thematic similarities to all of these relationships? Sure. Are they handled with any kind of thematic strengthening, or given weight beyond creating plotting distractions and ways to divert conversations? Dude, get bent.

Still, that’s somewhat standard TV nonsense, of having side character padding. It’s just especially lazily effected here, especially when we have those pointless “talk to the camera” interviews with each character, where they pause and stare meaningfully at the viewer; these often have minimal dialogue and exist of exactly that – it’s a reality TV-esque “I can’t believe she did that” and then they stare. Very useful. No – don’t engage in thinking that that ‘reality TV’ comment is part of the bonkers meta. I promise you that’s not happening.

Later, we’ll find out why Jess is acting the way she is, and by later, I mean you’ll kind of assume it right away. That it’s treated like a reveal is insulting, but even moreso when that reveal means the mystery is “solved.” …And then there’s another twist, just so we can have a super duper happy ending and remain conservative coded.