Is Catch Me If You Can the best fraud scandal movie or TV show of all time?

Catch Me If You Can

At the very start of the true story movie, the viewer knows exactly what happened at the very beginning and we know the fraud suspect was. We know that Frank Abagnale (portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio) cashed in over $4 million in fraudulent cheques in 26 countries and all 50 US states, pretending to be an airline pilot, a doctor, and an assistant attorney general in the process, before he was 19 years old. The film goes into greater detail on how he did it all.

The ultimate entertainment from the movie is when you watch how Abagnale did it, the events are so hard to believe that you'd most likely say to yourself, "this was very creative and imaginative fiction from the writer". This is why Catch Me If You Can and other true event films such as Wolf of Wall Street and Rush are so successful.

The film writer knows that the, "can't believe this happened, but it did!" entertainment will appeal to a mass audience because we want to be entertained by a new unbelievable story, the likes of which we have never heard before.

If you were hooked by Catch Me If You Can, you will be roped in by "Quiz"

The UK may have a hidden gem answer to rivaling Catch Me If You Can with a true story fraud scandal of their own. Introducing, Quiz. A TV game show heist. Or so it appears at first!

Quiz writer, James Graham, knows all too well that Quiz fits right into the "hard to believe this true story happened" category, only some might even say, Quiz has more to offer than Catch Me If You Can.

It's a true story 3 part TV mini-series, based on one of the most infamous fraud scandals of all time, which took place on one of the world's most successful game shows of all time, Who Wants To Be a Millionaire. Millionaire is not just a national treasure game show in the UK, it's global gold dust, as it features in approximately 160 countries.

While Millionaire is binge-watching for some, after you've seen Quiz, some might say Millionaire was obsessive for the suspects.

Who Wants to Cheat On Millionaire? Introducing the "Quiz" suspects

What exactly did they allegedly do and how exactly did they do it?

In September 2001, the suspects supposedly tried to cheat the system in an audacious and unprecedented heist, right in front of the eyes of the show's host, a live studio audience, the production team as well as millions at home watching on their TVs. Were they guilty or not guilty?

The alleged crimes of Charles Ingram, his wife Diana, and "coughing" accomplice Tecwen Whittock have been dubbed as the "Coughing Scandal" for a reason. When you watch the real-life footage of Ingram's episode on Youtube, you can repeatedly hear coughs being heard on the correct answers to questions that Charles seemed to not know the answer to. It appears Whittock carried out the vast majority of the coughing, while Diana also seems to make a 1-time cough contribution. The production team became suspicious of Charles early on in the show. They were eventually placed under arrest.

It initially appears the Ingrams and Whittock bit off more than they can chew. Or so we thought!

If it turns they did cheat, some might call it, criminal mastermind or ingenious, only for Mrs. Ingram and Whittock to be let down by Charles acting like the world's worst assassin; shooting his gun up in the air and shouting, "Hey! I'm over here!".

If they're innocent, some would say Charles is foolish for shooting himself in the foot with his 'class clown' style. If he had "played the game" in a "not TOO unusual way", no one would have grown suspicious of anything. Either way, Charles is a letdown to the whole thing.

Entertaining the crowd by pretending he did not know the answers and then answering them correctly was his excuse in his plea of innocence (which he still maintains even to this day). In theory, by answering the questions too quickly, you are less entertaining. To make the audience laugh by changing your answers, viewers are less likely to change the TV channel.

Were the coughs from Whittock or could there be more to do it than that? Did the sound of 1 cough lead to other things? You'll have to watch Quiz to find out more.

"The chase is better than the catch"

Let's recall the classic saying, "the chase is better than the catch".

In Catch Me If You Can, the viewer knows the facts of "who" did it and "what" happened from the very beginning. We know Abagnale was guilty, for sure. The film just explores the "how" he did it. Throughout the movie, FBI agent Carl Hanratty (portrayed by Tom Hanks) is on the "chase" to "catch" Abagnale.

At the very start of Quiz, the viewer knows "who" seemingly committed the fraud but they don't know the full extent of "what" happened, in weighing up a decision in their minds, "are Charles and co, guilty or innocent"? Sometimes, things aren't always as they seem.

After watching Quiz, the viewer will know all of the key facts in weighing up the innocence and guilt elements but the likelihood is, they can't say for sure whether they cheated. Why's that? Watch Quiz!

There was even a lawyer in 2020 (19 years after the incident!) campaigning to overturn the court's verdict in sentencing the Ingrams and Whittock. We strongly advise to not research this until after watching Quiz, as the information will contain spoiler alerts and buzzkill.

Therefore, what sets Quiz apart from Catch Me If You Can is that the "chase" (in figuring out whether Charles and co were innocent or guilty) is still very much on, even to this day. No matter how many times you watch Quiz, inevitably, there will be a U-turn after U-turn after U-turn in your mind. The lawyer's campaign speaks volumes in terms of how no one can say for sure if they cheated.

When you combine what the lawyer is campaigning about exactly, along with Charles supposedly being a class clown with the crowd as well as a key fact surrounding the nature of Whittock's coughs (watch Quiz for more details), this tells you all you need to know in your contemplation over their proclaimed innocence.

A scandal that remains not fully conclusive, even to this day, provides unique entertainment. Because it's human nature to want to be seen as having the "right answer" for everything as well as wanting to be the best detective in solving everything since Sherlock Holmes.

Catch Me If You Can is a "catch" movie for the viewer, because there's no figuring out required over whether Abagnale was guilty or innocent. Therefore, the film is a foregone conclusion from the very beginning. There is no chase in trying to solve anything. However, Catch Me If You Can is a very popular movie in the entertainment of seeing how Abagnale did it all with Hanratty "chasing" him.

That being said, you may find the "how" the Ingrams and Whittock did it all entertainment, on a par with, or even better than, Catch Me If You Can.

Is Quiz better than the movie, Catch Me If You Can, based on the thrill of the chase vs the climax of the catch? There's no right or wrong answer, as 'what's better' is purely subjective and opinion-based.

Compliments to the writer and cast

The writer of Quiz is James Graham. Quiz was originally a play written by Graham which ended up in the West End in 2018. Hats off to him for creating a very subtle and unbias art, in not making any hint of assumption or opinion from start to finish on the subject of innocence and guilt.

Referencing, "subjectivity and opinion-based" in letting the viewer decide what they think, Graham very much adopts that philosophy. If Graham had made Quiz so that it appears as if Charles and co are guilty for sure, then he would be limiting that, "not fully conclusive, unique entertainment, chase" factor for the viewer.

Referencing, "human nature to want to be seen as having the right answer for everything", the writer feeds on that in the viewer's mind, by leaving the door open on "innocent or guilty?" (this reference is very much the case answering questions on Who Wants To Be a Millionaire too). He knows that it's human nature to want to voice our opinions and be heard by the world. What could be better in triggering an opinion from someone than a case that isn't fully conclusive? A case that has the potential to divide opinion over guilt or innocence.

The icing on the true story cake is made sweeter by the gripping performances in the portrayal of the Ingrams. Matthew Macfadyen (who co-starred in, Pride & Prejudice, which received 4 Oscar nominations) stars as Charles and Sian Clifford (who starred in Fleabag, which won 2 Golden Globes) plays Diana.

Helen McCrory (who co-stars as Cherie Blair in The Queen, which won 1 Oscar) also shines in the portrayal of the deductive and silver-tongued lawyer (on the Ingrams side), Sonia Woodley.

Many have applauded Michael Sheen (who co-stars in The Queen, alongside Helen McCrory as her husband in the portrayal of former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair), for his uncanny performance of Chris Tarrant, the Who Wants To Be a Millionaire host.

Summary

Referencing the "not fully conclusive, unique entertainment, thrill of the chase" factor of Quiz, there's a good chance you will never see anything like this ever again. In show business, they say the key to entertainment is showing the audience something they have never seen before. That key is a common theme when deciding what to watch on our TVs. For as long as this scandal remains not fully conclusive in guilty vs innocent, Quiz will serve long in the memory for "chase" entertainment of a unique variety.