The Buccaneers

Edith Wharton's unfinished 1938 novel gets a second chance as a TV series, no doubt aided by Marion Mainwaring's completion of the book in 1993, based on Wharton's notes. The literary world was split on the two versions, but were in total cahoots when chastising the 1995 BBC TV series.

Almost thirty years on and Apple TV give it a fresh life for the modern audience, but still set it in the original period of 1870, when New York social manners where on a decline (that part of it brilliantly captured on another 2022 TV series - The Gilded Age). So a group of very American kind-of-women travel to London with the excuse of finding the perfect mannered rich English husband (but really find themselves in the process!).

The first thirty minutes seemed to be doomed, with a messy and uninteresting lazy set-up, pandering to a younger hip audience. It is soon saved by Wharton's true passion and champion of women's dilemmas during the patriarchy rule of the 1870's. Unfortunately the filmmakers style leans more toward a lightweight soapy romantic drama that has a rather blunt edge, but still maintains your interest with its lavish production.

I absolutely hated this when I started watching it. It felt like a rip-off Bridgerton. And in many ways it is. It was Bridgerton but not as good. I almost stopped watching. But then something odd happened. Partway through episode two, I began to enjoy it a bit more. A storyline of sorts began to develop. Someone's said the acting was bad. It wasn't. In fact, there are some good, well-known actors in the show. What irked, initially, was probably more the fault of the director than the actors - the vacuous cheerleader type vibe, which didn't sit well with 1870s England. It was also a mistake copying Bridgerton and using a modern music score. That jarred. And where it worked in Bridgerton, it didn't here. But even so, as the story and characters (along with their secrets) developed, I found myself pretty hooked on this. Is it historically accurate? Nope. Is it slightly the wrong side of light and frothy? Yes. But it's also quite addictive. I found myself thinking about it when I wasn't watching it and wanting to get back to the characters. There's also a darkness (particularly with one character) which helps to take the edge off the fluff. It's not a long series and, by the end, I wished it had been longer. I really hope a second season is on the way.

... one critic's comments... "The Buccaneers, a refreshing take on the period drama genre, exploring the clash of cultures and the pursuit of love and ambition with a modern sensibility, all within the enchanting setting of 1870s London. Its bold and unapologetic approach might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it undeniably adds a unique flavor to the genre."

... an ok show, well done for the most part... you'll know within the first episode if you're going to be sticking with it week to week... it's entertaining to a 6 of 10, really not much more... acting like it's trying to be, yet Bridgerton it's not

... 12.14.23 - quite the S1 ending ... night b4 wedding, hubby-to-be out on some balcony drinking, while fiance's 'bedroom-entertaining'.. and that's only one of the pairings... S2 coming ... (and actually early-episodes new-Bridgerton's-boring)

I oddly enjoy it. Despite the over the top, American loudness of our main character group. Because it does seem very American. Everything about the show screams it.

Does it seem a rip off of Bridgerton, yes.

I cringe when the group of girls scream like they're on spring break. When they go swimming in their underclothes with batchelors.

I'm only 3 episodes in but their behaviours, their vocabulary, their style of dress are very inconsistent with what would have been the norm.

Instead it seems like a group of Valley cheerleaders have been transplanted into mid 1800s England.

I guess it's made made to appeal to a TikTok generation's imagining of what that time would be like.

Despite the faults of the show and my inward cringing of just how...American...it is, I kind of enjoy it. Most of the cast are capable actors.

If you don't mind glossing over historical accuracy and enjoy a bit of vapidness, you probably wouldn't mind spending a few hours watching this.

Whilst I do love a modern injection to a period piece, There are so many things wrong with the direction and writing, and oh so obvious modern production lighting. Its just not believable. Men and women would never bathe together in a pond, or dance informally at a private party unless they were a bunch of Pre-Raphaelite Bohemians or it was a planned orgy (not the case here... but there is a TV series idea in that notion!) Furthermore, the lack of knowledge about the period , context and the class system oozes out everywhere... the overused, over familar speech "hey" (a mark of disrespect in those times) , "I'll call the authorities" implicating phone usage ( call upon, call out for, notify etc) , notable southern english accents that would be considered lower middle class/upper lower class at the time, hugging a champagne flute with your entire hand (vs holding at stem) and well bred gentle folk pointing at people (key characters and background) would be considered lower class or at least improper behaviors . That they ( are meant to) have heritage, class and money , this separates them from the other people in society, UK or USA. The make up however was a surprise, a saving grace... brava!... more period correct - barely noticable!

By keeping it period, with some modernity, the intended re telling of story would have much more punch.