Shardlake on Disney+

miamee

Based on the first book of the Matthew Shardlake series by CJ Sansom, Dissolution, this is a Tudor-age whodunnit. From Disney+:

Drenched in mystery, suspense and deception, Shardlake is a compelling whodunnit based on the internationally popular Tudor murder mystery novels by C.J. Sansom. The year is 1536. Matthew Shardlake, a brilliant lawyer with an acute sense of justice, finds his life turned upside down when Thomas Cromwell, Henry Vlll’s right-hand man, sends him to the remote monastery of Scarnsea to investigate a murder, and to ultimately claim its wealth for the King. Accompanied by the arrogant and ambitious Jack Barak, it becomes clear that the death they are investigating is not the first. Facing hostility and suspicion at every turn and unsure of Barak’s true intentions, Shardlake is drawn into a web of lies, deceit and corruption that threatens not only his integrity but his life.

I've read and loved this entire series of books and really looked forward to the series being made. When I saw the trailer I thought it fell a bit flat but actually having watched the whole series (it's only 4 episodes long), I really enjoyed it once I abandoned the admittedly small things that 'were different in the book'. They actually stayed very true to the book and I am hoping now that this one is successful enough for them to make some more. There are 7 books in the series. Trailer below, I'd be interested to hear what others have thought of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u04lYCo9xQ

TheIrishGrover

Well, from that snapshot, SOMEONE'S a gonner…

The Continental Op

Thats a con, Sean Bean is hardly in it. It get what it deserves on IMDB - 6.9 which for a series isn't really that good.

I've the last episode to watch tonight so I'll finish it but tbh not much better than a good (some are awful) Midsomer Murders.

Far to much very obvious CGI.

setanta1000

I read the books and loved them but I agree with the comment above 6.9 is about right for the series - it felt flat, like something as missing….I think it was missing any real jeopardy for any of the characters which is the opposite of the books. I always felt that one of the key hooks in the books was Shardlake's own sense of jeopardy and his uncertainty of his "political" standing because of relationship with Cromwell and his "societal" standing because of his disability.

8mv

I was glad that they were able to insert a dedication to CJ Samsom at the end of the first episode - he died just a few days before it premiered on Disney+. I'd give it a more generous score - I didn't care much for the trailer but when I watched the series I was quite impressed. The CGI was a little obvious but the storyline and acting were very good - I thought Arthur Hughes portrayed Matthew Shardlake very well, especially the conflict between his conscience and his desire to serve his political masters, which will come more to the fore if, as I hope, we get to see more seasons. I like how, in the books and this series, people underestimate Matthew because of his disability and he is canny enough to take advantage of that. A bit like Columbo used his dishevelled and absent-minded look to put suspects off their guard.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122169391#Comment_122169391

Is the ending in the show the same as the book?

I heard a BBC radio adaptation of it and the ending was very different.

8mv

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122169771#Comment_122169771

Long time since I read the book but as far as I can recall the ending is the same. One of the differences is that Jack Barak appears in this adaptation of the first story whereas in the books he is introduced only in the second story…

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122170495#Comment_122170495

Thanks. Ok, so the radio adaptation matched the book but there's some changes who accompanies Shardlake and their arc for the TV series.

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/shardlake-book-change-jack-barak-exclusive-newsupdate/

Charlo30

I'm a big fan of the books so watched this with some trepidation. Thankfully it was a largely faithful adaptation. Probably the biggest chance was to Shardlake. At the start of the 1st novel he is already becoming disillusioned with the Reform movement. You don't get the same sense of that in the show.

Someone mentioned above that it felt a bit flat and I agree with that. Personally I think the writing focused on the 2 main characters and failed to develop the secondary ones. Some of them felt a bit cliched. And could have also done with more Sean Bean.

However all that aside I'd give it a solid 7/10. And hope we have a second series. That would be based on Dark Fire which is a rollicking good read. And faster paced then the first novel

pixelburp

Hey, this was a lot of fun and can't complain about something only 4 episodes long; it didn't overstay its welcome and had a decent enough hook. Shardlake himself was a good main character. My only complaint would be it kinda dropped you into this time period and left you to work out the details yourself; my wife had a few questions 'cos she wasn't so immediately sure about who Anne Boleyn was & how she worked into the whole affair that all the political stuff was easy to follow.

Also, wasn't completely down with the visual choices: shooting it like a music video, all dramatic & saturated colours and lens flares, was a really odd choice given the current fashion is to shoot any story set pre-electricity in various shades of mud and grey.

steve_r

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122281485#Comment_122281485

Yeah I'd agree with that.

I don't think anyone on the thread was particularly impressed by the visuals.

In terms of understanding the historical context, it is interesting that they did so little hand-holding. Personally I prefer that approach as it avoid clunky exposition and makes the conversations more natural.

A few posters above have read the book so they wouldn't have needed the background. I've read the Wolf Hall books (a different take on Cromwell) so I'd have an idea of the history. I don't think its essential though, without having read the books I enjoyed this.

odyssey06

I've seen some clips from the old PBS broadcasts in the US of UK content, before the broadcast they would have the host - think it was Alastair Cooke - give an introduction, set the historical context, bring people up to speed with what was about to come on.

The series itself then could clip along without having to do that.

Some of these period series could do with that, to bring in viewers.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122281515#Comment_122281515

Yeah exposition is tricky but at the same time I think they did kinda let viewers swim in the deep end a bit too much; I really had to think on the fly and try and remember my Henry VIII history! The reform stuff was fairly efficiently explained but all the winking and conspiracy around Anne Boleyn really left a lot for the viewer to work out.

Also, this casual castle nerd kept getting quietly irritated the patently central european castle locations were being passed off as in the UK; I guess that was a tax-break issue 'cos I'd have thought there were more than enough castles in the UK you could film from?

miamee

As far as I remember, Shardlake's connection to Ann Boleyn and that whole affair is explained in depth later in the series in another book but I can see why if you hadn't read the books and had that background that you might have been lost. Having watched The Tudors back in the day and read these and also the Philippa Gregory historical novels, I I sort of forgot that most people would not have been up to date on the details surrounding Ann Boleyn's ending. I can understand it now that you've mentioned it though!