Shardlake

I'm going to keep it short and sweet. Watched the first episode and some of the ingredients were good and had potential like Sean Bean and Arthur Hughes characters. Also it takes place in such an interesting time in Englands history which is exciting because there are not too many shows set at the time of the Dissolution of the monasteries, it's a show with a serious tone, so it should definitely take the historic time it's based in seriously right?? Nope it fails miserably at that. Such a waste, I didn't even bother with the next episode. If you want to watch a better show that is similar I would watch The Pillars of the Earth.

Ohh well, I wonder what other amazing books Disney can ruin next.

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.

As a huge fan of the Shardlake books I was excited to see this production. It did not disappoint for acting and entertainment but I did feel it was abbreviated and could have been a couple of episodes longer. I also felt that the addition of a rather unlikely number of black characters did take away a very important element of how the black apothecary monk stood out as different; that said it didn't really effect the plot too much. The thing that did annoy me was the replacing of the character Mark Poer Shardlake's manservant, with Jack Barak, a character who makes his first appearance in the follow up novel "Dark Fire" I assume this is done to allow a continuing partnership in the next Shardlake series but this meant adjusting the ending of this series. So unnecessary! We are not children, we can cope with the introduction of new characters.

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.

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.