The late C. J. Sansom's Shardlake series is without doubt my favourite historical crime series. Within reading a few pages of the first book ("Dissolution", on which this Disney adaptation is based) I was immersed in the 1530s. Meticulous research, skilful characterisation and atmospheric prose had me hooked right from the very start.
With a total running time of just over three hours, spread over four episodes, I didn't expect this series to be entirely faithful to its source material, yet hoped that some degree of that - for me , vital - immersiveness might be retained.
Disappointingly, that did not turn out to be the case.
'Shardlake' turned out to be a modern fantasy view of a fascinating period in English history. Matthew Shardlake is played well by Arthur Hughes, but this somewhat peevish, occasionally ranting version of the character is not particularly recognisable from the books. Anthony Boyle's Jack Barak is interesting, but again is not much like the written-word character - especially in one episode when he becomes a cold-blooded murderer. Sean Bean does his best as Thomas Cromwell, yet seems miscast.
With the quest for immersion and believability in mind, the apparent colour-blind casting cannot be ignored. Anybody with a working knowledge of 16th Century England knows that the country was overwhelmingly 'white' at the time, yet here black and Asian characters abound. On one hand I can understand the intention to open acting opportunities on an inclusive basis (and to be fair, the quality of performance from the supporting cast is uniformly good), but populating Tudor England so diversely has the unfortunate effect of catapulting me back to the current century. Any pretence that we are seeing a realistic version of the 1530s is entirely dissipated. That there were black people in England at the time is indisputable, but they certainly were not abbots and probably rare enough in most places to be notable.
In the books Brother Guy of Malton, the infirmarian, is a dark-skinned "Moor", and like Shardlake is an intelligent, competent professional man held back in his ambitions due to his appearance and the very real prejudices of the time. The pair become friends partly due to them both being partial social outcasts and their relationships underpins much of the series here. Guy's backstory is very plausible too.
In "Shardlake" Guy is just another character from a diverse background and should a second series be commissioned it'll be difficult to bring the former monk and the lawyer together.
It's perhaps surprising that a production that sacrifices believability for inclusiveness, ageism seems to rear its head here. Shardlake seems younger than his literary equivalent, as are the abbot, Laurence Goodhap, Brother Gabriel and Brother Guy. Are modern viewers unwilling to watch older characters? I suspect not, but this does seem to be a modern casting strategy.
Some of the costumes appeared a little bit "Hollywood view of history" too, and during the brief scenes set in London the viewer might be forgiven for thinking that citizens at that time made their way around via a system of torchlit stone passageways. Budgetary constraints perhaps, but in subsequent books the city of London - and others - are as much characters as the humans. The occasional bit of dodgy CGI here does not augur well for any future episodes.
History drama for the 2020s, yet I feel a real opportunity has been missed to turn high quality source material into the classic television series it might have been. I always feel that presenting as accurate a picture of a historical setting is preferable to imposing modern sensibilities on it.
Initial reviews appear to have been positive, so my view might be a minority one, but if series two does pop up, I doubt I'll be tuning in.
That's a shame - I've been looking forward to a possible film/TV dramatisation since reading the first book 20 years ago.
With a total running time of just over three hours, spread over four episodes, I didn't expect this series to be entirely faithful to its source material, yet hoped that some degree of that - for me , vital - immersiveness might be retained.
Disappointingly, that did not turn out to be the case.
'Shardlake' turned out to be a modern fantasy view of a fascinating period in English history. Matthew Shardlake is played well by Arthur Hughes, but this somewhat peevish, occasionally ranting version of the character is not particularly recognisable from the books. Anthony Boyle's Jack Barak is interesting, but again is not much like the written-word character - especially in one episode when he becomes a cold-blooded murderer. Sean Bean does his best as Thomas Cromwell, yet seems miscast.
With the quest for immersion and believability in mind, the apparent colour-blind casting cannot be ignored. Anybody with a working knowledge of 16th Century England knows that the country was overwhelmingly 'white' at the time, yet here black and Asian characters abound. On one hand I can understand the intention to open acting opportunities on an inclusive basis (and to be fair, the quality of performance from the supporting cast is uniformly good), but populating Tudor England so diversely has the unfortunate effect of catapulting me back to the current century. Any pretence that we are seeing a realistic version of the 1530s is entirely dissipated. That there were black people in England at the time is indisputable, but they certainly were not abbots and probably rare enough in most places to be notable.
In the books Brother Guy of Malton, the infirmarian, is a dark-skinned "Moor", and like Shardlake is an intelligent, competent professional man held back in his ambitions due to his appearance and the very real prejudices of the time. The pair become friends partly due to them both being partial social outcasts and their relationships underpins much of the series here. Guy's backstory is very plausible too.
In "Shardlake" Guy is just another character from a diverse background and should a second series be commissioned it'll be difficult to bring the former monk and the lawyer together.
It's perhaps surprising that a production that sacrifices believability for inclusiveness, ageism seems to rear its head here. Shardlake seems younger than his literary equivalent, as are the abbot, Laurence Goodhap, Brother Gabriel and Brother Guy. Are modern viewers unwilling to watch older characters? I suspect not, but this does seem to be a modern casting strategy.
Some of the costumes appeared a little bit "Hollywood view of history" too, and during the brief scenes set in London the viewer might be forgiven for thinking that citizens at that time made their way around via a system of torchlit stone passageways. Budgetary constraints perhaps, but in subsequent books the city of London - and others - are as much characters as the humans. The occasional bit of dodgy CGI here does not augur well for any future episodes.
History drama for the 2020s, yet I feel a real opportunity has been missed to turn high quality source material into the classic television series it might have been. I always feel that presenting as accurate a picture of a historical setting is preferable to imposing modern sensibilities on it.
Initial reviews appear to have been positive, so my view might be a minority one, but if series two does pop up, I doubt I'll be tuning in.
That's a shame - I've been looking forward to a possible film/TV dramatisation since reading the first book 20 years ago.