Shardlake

There are some standout things about the adaption of Sansom's beloved Shardlake like the casting of Arthur Hughes. The actor embodies everything a fan of the series could hope for in our beloved character. He really is excellent.

There were little inclusions which I loved like the bird from Peru Land. Excellent. Also the flashbacks to Matthew as a boy - very beautifully done and very touching.

1 x star lost: The actors that were cast as Barak, Abbott Fabian and Brother Guy the physician were horribly miscast. Anthony Boyle is NOT Jack Barak. Boyle swaggers his way through the storyline but he does not embody who Barak is. Not even close. And without giving spoilers away - that whole scene in the stable was absurd. Guy was a Moor and the actor that played him didn't have the range to convince me he was Guy. Oh...and a Black Abbott Fabian? Blacker than Guy? Give me strength.

1 x star lost: Tudor England was not multicultural like it's depicted. Get over it. Stop trying to change history. Ridiculous.

I'm happy you chose Arthur Hughes and I enjoyed the adaption. Very atmospheric and compelling.

I'm only one episode in. So far, the characterisation is good. The production values impressive and the direction stellar. Alas, already the immersion into the 16th century setting is stifled by 21st century narratives.

I'm personally not a British person. Yet, I can't help but feel insulted on behalf of the real historical people of the time period in England.

When I watch a "historical drama", as a viewer with an interest in history, I want immersion. It's a sad indictment of modern society when historical TV productions feel obligated to be all inclusive in the name of progressive politics.

The story itself is very intriguing, but the show as a whole feels disingenuous and far removed from the time period. There are dual narratives at play. One is set in the 16th century and the other is set firmly in the 21st and it's difficult to separate one from the other.

If you don't require immersion you'll probably enjoy the series. However, I personally find it difficult to suspend belief enough to envision that so many people in 16th England were of Asian and sub-Saharan African descent.

This is just an honest opinion of someone who has no political agenda or biases whatsoever. I like historical dramas. Unfortunately, this historical/fantasy hybrid is not something I can invest in.

I thought it impossible for TV to capture the essence of C. J. Sansom's Shardlake book series. I am happily surprised by the spirit and quality of the TV series so far. The casting, especially Arthur Hughes and Anthony Boyle (the man is currently in 3 series I am watching!) is near perfect based on the books. Episode 4 is a bit muddled when it comes to tieing up all the loose ends (Norfolk and his man) but still consider the series off to a good start. And for those who have criticized the "the historical accuracy" of people of color in Tudor England, I refer you both to the novels and to the British Library. Africans had important roles in Tudor times, including in religious communities. It wasn't until later they were relegated to lower status due to the slave trade.

I'd forgotten the plot of the original Dissolution novel on which this is based hence the whodunnit element was enough to keep me watching the whole series. I see some reviewers are critical of casting choices which I can't truly see any issue with - it's a dramatisation, faithfulness to the period in terms of exact settings, clothing, architecture etc don't need to be adhered to, as after all, in the time of its setting the language spoken itself would've been impossible to recreate faithfully to modern viewers understanding! I'm interested to see if further adaptations will continue as I do love the genre of medieval murder mysteries and TV lacks these! But the main characters were well developed and cast, and I'm amused at the irony of Sean Bean playing Cromwell who, we all know, irl did not meet a happy and peaceful ending, much like many of the characters Sean plays...

I have recently watched both Shardlake and Shogun, one set in historic England the other in historic Japan. Both had wonderful costumes and locations designed to represent the location and period they were set in, but Shogun used actors of Japanese origin for all the Japanese parts while Shardlake did not respect the ethnicity of the historic English characters.

Both countries had small numbers of foreigners present at the time, with the estimated number of black people in 16th Century England to be no more than about 100. In no way were either country "diverse" and England was 99.99% white, with most people never seeing a non-white person in their life time.

Whereas Shogun drew me in to a believable world, Shardlake broke all immersion with the use of inappropriate races for the time.

Shardlake is spoilt by Disney's current political agenda - why did they respect the ethnicity of the Japanese characters in Shogun but not the English characters in Shardlake? Double-standards?

I am glad Shogun stuck to authenticity with its casting, but Disney should pay the same respect to historic white European dramas.