![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
More (TV)Cadfael criticism
I've finally watched all 13 episodes and can now form an opinion about the whole thing. All in all, I enjoyed the series (save certain godawful episodes and really bad casting choices), but there are a few points that I'd like to elaborate.
1)Timeline, or rather the complete lack of it
I'll list for you the TV-episodes by season, given in ()s the actual year the novel each episode was based on, really took place.
Series One
- One Corpse Too Many (Summer 1138)
- The Sanctuary Sparrow (Spring 1141)
- The Leper of St. Giles (October 1139)
- Monk's Hood (early December 1138)
Series Two
- The Virgin in the Ice (November 1139)
- The Devil's Novice (mid-September 1140)
- A Morbid Taste for Bones (1137)
Series Three
- The Rose Rent (Spring 1142)
- St. Peter's Fair (early July 1139)
- The Raven in the Foregate (December 1141)
Series Four
- The Holy Thief (Autumn 1144)
- The Potter's Field (August 1143)
- The Pilgrim of Hate (Summer 1141)
Of course, the whole series is randomly episodic by its nature, with no true continuity between the individual episodes, so unless you're a book fan, you would never realize the timeline mess-up. Which leads to the next problem:
Historic background
Due to the butchered timeline, there was barely any of it, save from the fact that King Stephen and the Empress Maud were fighting each other for the crown. For all that we were supposed to side with Stephen, his followers were shown in a fairly unfavourable light. Random OCs were gallopping across the screen, killing people for no apparent reason and harrassing the Abbey and the monks. again, for no apparent reason. Honourable, well-established historic personalities like Robert de Beaumont were degraded to young lustlings. If one watches the series season by season, one learns nothing about the actual stand of the civil war (unlike in the books).
Spiritual concept
Of that, there is absolutely none to be found. Yes, I know that such elegiac books don't translate well to the screen, but that doesn't excuse the fact, that practically all monks (with the exception of Cadfael and old Abbor Heribert) are shown as bigoted idiots. Or simply as idiots, like poor Oswin, although he's the one who was the most sympathetic of the younger generation. They bring in such fools like Brother Adam (not from canon, mind you), who seems to find delight in self-flagellation and is the first to fall for the ravings of a madman. Why would they need such a clichéd OC? They had Brother Columbanus in "A Morbid Taste", who was mad enough, why a second one?
Speaking of which, I found it insulting how often Prior Robert was portrayed as an idiot. Granted, he's not the most likeable character in the books, but he was an ambitious, intelligent and diligent man; and a historical person at that, who indeed brought the bones of St. Winifred to Shrewsbury and wrote a book about it. Alas, Father Radulfus didn't escape from being made an idiot from time to time, either.
All in all, you never get the impression that all these monks would come to the cloister because they actually *liked* it there. Or found any satisfaction in monastic life. They were either idiots, alienated from real life, or bitter old zealots, also alienated from real life. Well, no. That's not what they're like in the books at all.
The portrayal of the townspeople
Also not a stellar concept. In the books, the merchants and craftsmen of Shrewsbury are not saints, but they aren't the angry mob always ready to lynch someone, either. While there were a few really well-portrayed characters, like Geoffrey Fuller or Niall Bronzesmith, the rest of them were completely exchangeable. And neither the Shrewsbury people nor the ones in Wales seemed to have much dignity. Is honest, hard work a shame?
Butchering the characters
I already spoke about the monks and poor, saintly Rhun being turned into Walter the cheat and conman and Luc Meverel into a madman tormenting his own brother (who was never his brother in canon, BTW). And of Robert de Beaumont. I was greatly disappointed with Hugh Beringar, too. As soon as Sean Pertwee left, Hugh started to become less and less important. By the third actor, I couldn't really make any difference between them and, say, Men-at-Arms#3 standing around and looking stupid. I mourned the loss of Aline and the rest of the family, the loss of his special friendship with Cadfael, the loss of any personality and, frankly, the complete lack of any likeable character traits.
I hated that Ermina Hugonin (whom I violently dislike in the books, BTW) have lost all her edge. I hated that Miles Colier apparently lusted for his cousin Judith Perle and tried to kill her in the end out of unrequited incestuous love for her. I hated just about everything that happened to the characters in "St. Peter's Fair". I hated that Father Ailnoth became a political zealot in "The Raven of the Foregate", and that Cynric and William/Edmund among them actually did kill him (not that he didn't deserve it, but that's another matter entirely.
I hated the whole idea with Eleanor (who dubbed for Eluned) and her blind sister - what the hell could be the purpose of *that*? Why didn't we learn anything about them? I hated the sinister, zealous figure Prior Herluin became in "The Holy Thief" and the idiot Father Radulfus became in that episode. And don't even let me start on "The Pilgrim of Hate" or I'll scream.
Butchering the plot
What they did with the books was a downward spiral. Series One was actually quite good; the changes they made to adapt the stuff for a visual medium acceptable and well done. And Sean Pertwee gave Hugh Beringar a great deal of presence. Series Two wasn't all that bad, either. "The Virgin in the Ice" was a bit haphazard plot-wise, but enjoyable, and Yves Hugonin and Olivier de Bretagne were great. I liked "The Devil's Novice", too. "A Morbid Taste of Bones" wouldn't have been too bad, if not for the Welsh lynch mob. but it was still acceptable, and thank God, Hugh Beringar #2 wasn't seen too much.
The downfall started with Series Three. Serious character damage in "The Rose Rent" - Judith Perle could have guest starred in "Desperate Housewives", if not for her silly costume, and Miles and Bertred were really badly conceived. I liked Niall Bronzesmith, though, even if I didn't understand while the stupid subplot about his dead, adulterous wife was necessary. He was perfectly fine as a lonely widow in the books. But at least they followed the book plot; well, mostly.
Now, "St. Peter's Fair" was really shitty. The characters were seriously miscast, and while the story remained roughly the same, it was haphazard and boring. But with "The Raven in the Foregate", the entire series hit bottom. Those pillaging troups looking for Stephen's enemies and rendering Hugh Beringar to an impotent fool - was that really necessary? Master Thomas's barge most likely fell victim to budget cuts, but that he'd get in a fight with Ivo Corbiere right after his arrival? Oh, please! And what was this business with cutting out tongues and plucking out eyes?
Series Four took us another grade deeper in shit. That whole "trial by water" business, and that Hugh would believe in it and practice it? Forget it. Yes, I know they did it in the Middle Ages, but they didn't do it in the books. And this wasn't supposed to be a historical documentary, or was it? And splitting Donata Blount into two different women - WTF? Two different women who suffered the same way? Two different women, both of whom nearly lost a son to Ramsey Abbey? And don't even let me start again about "The Pilgrim of Hate". That one was pure blasphemy.
And I still enjoyed it, you ask me? Perversely enough, I did. It's an interesting and entertaining series, save from a few completely unnecessary icky moments. It's just not Cadfael, IMO. Not really. Not for me. Not after Season Two anyway.
Feel free to disagree with me.
1)Timeline, or rather the complete lack of it
I'll list for you the TV-episodes by season, given in ()s the actual year the novel each episode was based on, really took place.
Series One
- One Corpse Too Many (Summer 1138)
- The Sanctuary Sparrow (Spring 1141)
- The Leper of St. Giles (October 1139)
- Monk's Hood (early December 1138)
Series Two
- The Virgin in the Ice (November 1139)
- The Devil's Novice (mid-September 1140)
- A Morbid Taste for Bones (1137)
Series Three
- The Rose Rent (Spring 1142)
- St. Peter's Fair (early July 1139)
- The Raven in the Foregate (December 1141)
Series Four
- The Holy Thief (Autumn 1144)
- The Potter's Field (August 1143)
- The Pilgrim of Hate (Summer 1141)
Of course, the whole series is randomly episodic by its nature, with no true continuity between the individual episodes, so unless you're a book fan, you would never realize the timeline mess-up. Which leads to the next problem:
Historic background
Due to the butchered timeline, there was barely any of it, save from the fact that King Stephen and the Empress Maud were fighting each other for the crown. For all that we were supposed to side with Stephen, his followers were shown in a fairly unfavourable light. Random OCs were gallopping across the screen, killing people for no apparent reason and harrassing the Abbey and the monks. again, for no apparent reason. Honourable, well-established historic personalities like Robert de Beaumont were degraded to young lustlings. If one watches the series season by season, one learns nothing about the actual stand of the civil war (unlike in the books).
Spiritual concept
Of that, there is absolutely none to be found. Yes, I know that such elegiac books don't translate well to the screen, but that doesn't excuse the fact, that practically all monks (with the exception of Cadfael and old Abbor Heribert) are shown as bigoted idiots. Or simply as idiots, like poor Oswin, although he's the one who was the most sympathetic of the younger generation. They bring in such fools like Brother Adam (not from canon, mind you), who seems to find delight in self-flagellation and is the first to fall for the ravings of a madman. Why would they need such a clichéd OC? They had Brother Columbanus in "A Morbid Taste", who was mad enough, why a second one?
Speaking of which, I found it insulting how often Prior Robert was portrayed as an idiot. Granted, he's not the most likeable character in the books, but he was an ambitious, intelligent and diligent man; and a historical person at that, who indeed brought the bones of St. Winifred to Shrewsbury and wrote a book about it. Alas, Father Radulfus didn't escape from being made an idiot from time to time, either.
All in all, you never get the impression that all these monks would come to the cloister because they actually *liked* it there. Or found any satisfaction in monastic life. They were either idiots, alienated from real life, or bitter old zealots, also alienated from real life. Well, no. That's not what they're like in the books at all.
The portrayal of the townspeople
Also not a stellar concept. In the books, the merchants and craftsmen of Shrewsbury are not saints, but they aren't the angry mob always ready to lynch someone, either. While there were a few really well-portrayed characters, like Geoffrey Fuller or Niall Bronzesmith, the rest of them were completely exchangeable. And neither the Shrewsbury people nor the ones in Wales seemed to have much dignity. Is honest, hard work a shame?
Butchering the characters
I already spoke about the monks and poor, saintly Rhun being turned into Walter the cheat and conman and Luc Meverel into a madman tormenting his own brother (who was never his brother in canon, BTW). And of Robert de Beaumont. I was greatly disappointed with Hugh Beringar, too. As soon as Sean Pertwee left, Hugh started to become less and less important. By the third actor, I couldn't really make any difference between them and, say, Men-at-Arms#3 standing around and looking stupid. I mourned the loss of Aline and the rest of the family, the loss of his special friendship with Cadfael, the loss of any personality and, frankly, the complete lack of any likeable character traits.
I hated that Ermina Hugonin (whom I violently dislike in the books, BTW) have lost all her edge. I hated that Miles Colier apparently lusted for his cousin Judith Perle and tried to kill her in the end out of unrequited incestuous love for her. I hated just about everything that happened to the characters in "St. Peter's Fair". I hated that Father Ailnoth became a political zealot in "The Raven of the Foregate", and that Cynric and William/Edmund among them actually did kill him (not that he didn't deserve it, but that's another matter entirely.
I hated the whole idea with Eleanor (who dubbed for Eluned) and her blind sister - what the hell could be the purpose of *that*? Why didn't we learn anything about them? I hated the sinister, zealous figure Prior Herluin became in "The Holy Thief" and the idiot Father Radulfus became in that episode. And don't even let me start on "The Pilgrim of Hate" or I'll scream.
Butchering the plot
What they did with the books was a downward spiral. Series One was actually quite good; the changes they made to adapt the stuff for a visual medium acceptable and well done. And Sean Pertwee gave Hugh Beringar a great deal of presence. Series Two wasn't all that bad, either. "The Virgin in the Ice" was a bit haphazard plot-wise, but enjoyable, and Yves Hugonin and Olivier de Bretagne were great. I liked "The Devil's Novice", too. "A Morbid Taste of Bones" wouldn't have been too bad, if not for the Welsh lynch mob. but it was still acceptable, and thank God, Hugh Beringar #2 wasn't seen too much.
The downfall started with Series Three. Serious character damage in "The Rose Rent" - Judith Perle could have guest starred in "Desperate Housewives", if not for her silly costume, and Miles and Bertred were really badly conceived. I liked Niall Bronzesmith, though, even if I didn't understand while the stupid subplot about his dead, adulterous wife was necessary. He was perfectly fine as a lonely widow in the books. But at least they followed the book plot; well, mostly.
Now, "St. Peter's Fair" was really shitty. The characters were seriously miscast, and while the story remained roughly the same, it was haphazard and boring. But with "The Raven in the Foregate", the entire series hit bottom. Those pillaging troups looking for Stephen's enemies and rendering Hugh Beringar to an impotent fool - was that really necessary? Master Thomas's barge most likely fell victim to budget cuts, but that he'd get in a fight with Ivo Corbiere right after his arrival? Oh, please! And what was this business with cutting out tongues and plucking out eyes?
Series Four took us another grade deeper in shit. That whole "trial by water" business, and that Hugh would believe in it and practice it? Forget it. Yes, I know they did it in the Middle Ages, but they didn't do it in the books. And this wasn't supposed to be a historical documentary, or was it? And splitting Donata Blount into two different women - WTF? Two different women who suffered the same way? Two different women, both of whom nearly lost a son to Ramsey Abbey? And don't even let me start again about "The Pilgrim of Hate". That one was pure blasphemy.
And I still enjoyed it, you ask me? Perversely enough, I did. It's an interesting and entertaining series, save from a few completely unnecessary icky moments. It's just not Cadfael, IMO. Not really. Not for me. Not after Season Two anyway.
Feel free to disagree with me.