Shardlake

There is more to putting a drama like this together than sinister music, sinister looks and a bit of running about.

The shame about SHARDLAKE is that the budget is there and the actor are there, the script however isn't.

The adaptation takes a strong book by C J SANSOM and makes it a meandering mess of a thing, a basic detective procedural laced with long exposition sections in the refectory, replete with lingering glances, meaningful stares and moody music.

The music is a sub Hans Zimmer smush of broody brace and tense strings that doesn't really drive the action, just paints it in different variants of beige.

It's a diverting watch but could have been so much better in the hands of writers and directors who trusted the material.

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.

Shardlake is about a murder mystery in 16th century England during Henry VIIIs dismantling of the monasteries, and as a History teacher of course I had to watch this. I was a bit concerned that it would overlap The Tudors too much but luckily this is not the case and this series and its mystery stands on its own two feet very well.

Sean Bean is given ridiculously little screen time and at first it got me irritated and I thought this was another one of those series where you hire a famous actor for 5 minutes and live of their reputation, but this is not the case and my mood improved as I got stuck into the mystery.

I was happy to see Anthony Boyle again after just seeing his star-making performances in Masters of the Air and Manhunt, but I believe that co-starring roles like this are now a thing of the past for him. His performance is pretty good as John Barak, but the true star of the show is Arthur Hughes as Shardlake. He is the star of every scene he is in, and in Holmes-like faction he solves the mystery one step at a time while remaining confident and charismatic in a way that captivates the viewer. A revelation indeed, this works really well, excellent casting.

All in all, even though this is nowhere near as good as "The Name of the Rose" for example, the settings look great, the tone is grim, the mystery is fairly interesting and the acting is better than I expected. Well worth a watch!

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 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.