SHARDLAKE: “The Name of the Rose” in a version for budget television

Sean Bean was supposed to guarantee quality in the plot, portraying a character from English history known for intrigues and a tragic death, as well as his connection to someone even more controversial and hated by royalists—Oliver Cromwell. Despite his excellent performance, the series falls short in execution. Actors may literally merge mentally with their characters, but this won’t help if the adapted historical series “Shardlake” looks like a cheap version of “Game of Thrones,” additionally clearly copying solutions used in “The Name of the Rose.” I realize that according to the intentions of the book’s author, C.J. Sansom, Matthew Shardlake was meant to be somewhat similar to William of Baskerville in Umberto Eco’s work, but I perhaps didn’t fully realize that this similarity, along with the similarity of the world, would almost border on plagiarizing the plot idea. Judge for yourselves. The series is available on Disney+ from May 1.

Regarding similarities with “The Name of the Rose,” attention could have been paid to details such as changing the order. In “Shardlake,” they are Benedictines again, and among the suspicious monks, the same pattern repeats—homosexual monk, deceitful abbot, one outcast, former criminals, etc. Commissioner Shardlake also has a stubborn assistant whom he cannot fully control. An important difference, however, is that the Tudor detective is disabled. He not only has a deformed spine (kyphosis, hump) but also bone and joint dysplasia in his right hand. His physical condition affects his mental state and how others perceive him negatively, thus splitting the accents in the series into criminal and social threads, with a clear reference to today’s equality-oriented times. Therefore, the main role is played by disabled actor Arthur Hughes. There’s no artistic basis for criticism here; he was undoubtedly a facilitation for makeup artists and CGI specialists. At least they didn’t have to create a deformed hand for him. It’s a different story with his back. However, you can’t have it all. If there are concerns about the actors, I’m open to discussing the justification for casting so many black actors, populating the Benedictine monastery, from the abbot to the young homosexual monk. From the outside, it looks like artificial enforcement of racial quotas rather than a rational approach to diversity.

This didn’t help the series because technically it doesn’t hold up. The resources allocated to it are clearly insufficient. The plans are small, cramped, always the same, like in television theater. Landscape panoramas of Scarnsea, the port, the monastery, and the outdoors are regularly integrated into the plot. Unfortunately, I must admit they look like HDR photos from 10 years ago, with elements in the foreground appearing pasted onto another layer without smooth transitions. The camera work is minimal. The shots are rather standard, without attempting to engage the viewer through visual storytelling. Sometimes you can even see something on the third plane that physically wasn’t there on set. The lighting work deserves praise. It creates an intriguing atmosphere of mystery and enhances the perspective, but it doesn’t compensate for all the other shortcomings. The plot itself is interesting, even if one is aware of its proximity to “The Name of the Rose.” In the four episodes available on Disney+, we learn a lot about the religious and social issues of 16th-century England, the intrigues within the royal court, and the roles played by both the church and Cromwell’s authority in setting the stage, more or less consciously, for the future civil war and the overthrow of the Stuart dynasty in the 17th century, which forever changed the relationship between the restored dynasty and parliament. The main character, Shardlake, navigates through this political sauce with his assistant, sent to a corrupt Benedictine monastery to solve a murder mystery.

If there were still an old version of the page allowing users to rate reviewed films, “Shardlake” would receive a strong 4 out of 10 stars. These 4 stars were earned by Sean Bean, the lighting in the scenes, and Arthur Hughes, who skillfully infused his life experience as a disabled artist into his character, striving to be on par with the “normal” ones, without any special treatment. What kind of devil’s spawn would he have been in Henry VIII’s time? Certainly not a lawyer, more likely a beggar, unless he had noble connections. But Commissioner Shardlake didn’t have those. Only Cromwell’s authority protected him. There’s another component of this 4-star rating that I consider high—the atmosphere. Despite technical weaknesses, the remote abbey and what happens within it exude such an enticing horror film glow. It’s most visible in scenes where the detective appears, showcasing his deformed hand. This atmosphere is probably owed to the novel, but it’s good that the creators were able to maintain it and emphasize the main character’s disability as a metaphor for the environment’s monstrosity, its deceit, and sometimes what seems like a futile struggle for truth, especially against organizations that claim to be its custodians and sole supporters. The rest needs improvement.