I confess it: I do not entirely care for either of these two period dramas. So if the reader wants another fan fest, perhaps someone else's review might please. To my way of thinking, a little constructive criticism never hurt any industry, and that would, of course, include both arts and entertainment.
Readers may find that I'm not generally stingy with my praise if ever I find something that I see has merit. However, these two series often miss the mark in a number of disappointing ways. One wonders how inattentive the producers of both actually see their audiences as being. This goes double for the inevitable history nerds among those audiences.
Both are set in the 18th century, at least in part. Both sport some interesting and sometimes wonderful scenery. Both offer us a look at basic fashion ideas from each era. Despite their visual appeal, however, neither one quite manages to suspend my disbelief for long enough to keep me hooked. Perhaps that is the natural lot of this nerd, but then, I am by nature apt to spot inaccuracies of character, plot, and design.
I'll begin with Outlander.
Overall, and from what I've been able to discern through viewing Series One and Two, the acting is above average, sometimes bordering on quite fine. Although there are but few truly genius moments in the actors' performances, at least some of the actors can be said to be believable. I therefore have some genuine concerns over the casting, especially in one particular case. A few Scots brogues weren't entirely mastered in time for filming, but this is surely understandable, as any true Scot will tell you. (And here I will naturally have to confess to the patient reader that my own attempts at speaking with a Scots accent are bad enough to be embarrassing.)
Caitríona Balfe's performance does not bother me as much as her appearance does. That, as well as her lack of courage for diving deeply enough during some moments of grief or despair, have left me looking for more from her costar, Sam Heughan for more believable acting, although their argument scenes in Series 1 and 2 all rang true for me. Her dialog often made me wince. Sometimes my discomfiture continued throughout an entire episode. After all, she has been saddled with some late 20th century lines to say when in character from the 1940's while still living magically in 18th century Scotland. I cannot say for certain at this point whether the original author is entirely at fault here, or whether it is a problem with the script instead, having no copies of either currently to hand.
You may think me catty when I say that she looks too modern to me in both body type and movements, as she reminds me of a current fashion model visually, and not at all of a woman of World War II Britain. Looking at other past period style productions, one can find better casting as far as looks go. You won't find anybody built like her in any 1940's photos and films that I've seen. Whoever is doing the casting for historical fiction productions needs to have an eye for detail, such as where would one find such a body build other than in the here and now and on a fashion catwalk?
Yes, she is a model turned actress. Yes, she is very strikingly pretty and sometimes delivers a believable performance, but she's still a model at heart, and really much too tall and modern in appearance to fit the styles of either period that's shown in the series. According to a BBC article entitled, Statistics reveal Britain's 'Mr and Mrs Average', "The average woman in England weighed 11 stone (70.2kg) and was 5ft 3in tall (161.6cm)." That would translate to around 154 pounds on average. Why not cast somebody more true to period, someone who could carry off the costumes as they were actually worn in the 1940's? That would have made even her 1740's clothes fit her in a more realistic way, meaning true to character. She might still have been both curvy and trim while suspending disbelief. Balfe is 5'10" in height, and while curvy, she is still fairly close to model thin, making her appearance much less believable to this nerdy critic. The world is not made up of 21st century models and never has been. They could have cast someone with more acting experience, an actress whose looks we would appreciate but who wouldn't constantly remind us of her prior training as a fashion model. All of these factors beg this nerdy critic to ask the following:
When will casting directors and period drama production department heads realize that they owe us, the viewers, some sign that they've cared enough about the suspension of our disbelief?
And it wasn't just the obvious lack of understanding as to how personal in fit one's stays (what we might call a corset) would have been back then that kept ruining my viewing enjoyment, although it was one of the first major costuming gaffers I spotted right away. Such a lack of attention to detail is all too often a troubling circumstance of the designer going for a fairytale or fantasy approach rather than taking the more accurate path. All too often, the design of Claire's costumes simply cannot measure up. It makes no difference whether the costume designer in charge was nominated for an Emmy for her work as long as it is not period enough for such a period piece. Pretty though her clothing often looks on Balfe's model frame (as she does model everything ably well), it cannot satisfy this history nerd. I know my opinion is bound to be unpopular to die hard fans of the series, especially those who really do not mind it when a designer strays too far away from reality. However, one must also factor in how any fantastical time traveling story needs to remain as anchored in reality as possible in order for it to at least appear plausible.
Part of the problem starts with the story. With all due respect to Diana Gabaldon, her lack of logic turns up so often that I found it hard to finish reading her popular books. This was back when they were first being sold, with readers avidly gobbling up each new volume as soon as it could appear in print. We were passing the books around between family members, trading reads as is the custom in our family, and so I thought perhaps that it would be more fun to at least try to stay the course. I struggled to do so right into the fourth book of the series, Drums of Autumn, but then needed to refresh my palate with some more refined fiction. Though I carried some of my initial disappointed feelings with me along for the ride when first trying the televised version, I was willing to try and keep my mind open in case its producers had done something wonderful with it after all.
In several scenes during Series One, Claire is dressed inappropriately for the weather. The women surrounding her may be seen often wearing their shawls out of necessity, and yet she barely keeps herself covered enough for the indoors, let alone for a breezy day when cheeks are naturally blushing due to brisk conditions. Why are her shoulders and bosom left uncovered outdoors during chilly weather? To show off her looks, no doubt. But that simply would not have happened. Scotland is by nature a cold place, with weather year round in the highlands that is seldom toasty warm and with much rainy weather to boot. Back then, the northern hemisphere was experiencing what is known today as a "little ice age," during which summers were short, with snow and frozen rivers, etc notably more prevalent than had been the norm for quite some time before the 1740's. This was reflected in the artwork of the era by a rise in the popularity of snow scenes, sometimes involving skaters on rivers and ponds. These factors are what lead me to say that, with all things considered, she looks unnecessarily exposed to the elements in all such scenes.
And then there is the problem of the paucity of proper head coverings for the character of Claire, as the portrait of a Jacobite lady, above, shows. Notice the gold braid along with the very fine fabrics worn. Then notice the small, delicate hat she is wearing. Even well to do women often wore headwear both indoors and out during the time period. The same was true for almost all men. Whether this was the author's fault prior to production or not, I cannot say, as it has been many years since I tried reading the books. I think it is awkward for Claire, a 1940's woman who most certainly would have been in the habit of wearing hats routinely, to spend nearly all of the time in the chill Scottish Highland weather wearing nothing on her head. It simply wasn't done. Women's caps for indoor use sometimes were worn along with brimmed hats when they went out, as this 18th century painting by Hogarth shows. This was the standard for most levels of society, including that of Claire and Jamie, yet neither of the fist 2 Series of this show seem to take that into account.
Caps, bonnets and mobcaps were the norm all over northern Europe and the British Isles then. All of this would have been fairly easy for Terry Dresbach, the costume designer for the series, to have taken into consideration, even as early on as the first two series. Despite my personal history of having made period garb for a number of eras, this is not mere envy on my part, but more of a chance to set the record straight. After all, what on earth possessed Dresbach to add such anachronistic features to Claire's wedding gown, especially in the areas of both neckline and sleeves? What can she have been thinking? Even if the gown had an imaginary back story of having been brought from 16th century Italy and then re-trimmed or re-fitted for the show's 18th century Scottish wedding, it most certainly would never have fit any woman as tall as Balfe, especially through the neckline and torso. Please insult my intelligence no longer!
All historicity (or lack thereof) aside, there is one more fault with the televised version of Outlander, and that is that it comes out of an apparently lusty nature that the author of the books on which it has been based shows her reader time after time. It's truly inescapable. I've actually found myself thinking (this time admittedly in a very catty way) of privately calling the series by the discourteous appellate of "Smutlander." (Mean of me, I know. Two of my female family members would really complain if they knew this about me.)
Perhaps I've been spoiled by better quality writing. My favorite fiction author is Dorothy Dunnett, the best creator of Scottish historical fiction - or indeed, of any genre under the heading of historical fiction - in my experience. Dorothy Dunnett (affectionately called DD by her fans) did include some sensuous bedroom scenes in her books, but she never once strayed into the realms of soft porn. Her approach was more subtle, showing a sense of value to her appreciative readers. With all due respect to Ms Gabaldon, but how many soft porn scenes must one sit through before one may be allowed to get back to the plot? I know I am not alone in feeling this way. Some may see me as being too old fashioned or else stodgy, but I see all such gratuitous sex scenes as being totally superfluous. The series does try to stay truthful to the story line, which is fine in and of itself, but I am uninterested in knowing that much about anyone else's private sex life, whether fictional or real. Things could have been implied without being overtly obvious, and viewers would still have gotten the gist.
As for Sam's portrayal of the hero, Jamie Fraser, despite any distractions he may offer by way of his steamy good looks, I found it to be both believable and interesting to view - with one exception. I do not see how anyone would believe that he'd have kept his virginity till his first night of married life.
And now for my assessment of the 2015 Poldark.
Thankfully, this Poldark series does not stray that far away from decorum into the dark, murky waters of soft porn, and yet one still is quite well enough aware as to who's done what with whom. We have author Winston Graham to thank for this, naturally.
I am fortunate enough to have seen the 1970's series, with Robin Ellis and Angharad Rees as the two main stars, so I will attempt to compare it to the more modern one. I read the books with lingering interest as well. I still can relate to them, as they were built as all good reads are, with a supportive framework of both time and place. No sooner had I finished reading one, then I wanted to read the next.
The first series based on the books had its flaws, to be sure, most of them being technical. There were no digital cameras or Photoshop software back then. Even the title opener is rough around the edges by today's standards. However, I can find no fault with any of the acting, apart from that of the woefully miscast actor who was the first of two to play Dr Dwight Enys (Richard Morant was a better actor than many, but looked out of place in this instance). My one remaining quibble over casting was with Jill Townsend as Elizabeth, as she does not fit Graham's description of that character. Despite this, I found that her acting skills convinced me that she was Elizabeth. The 2015 Elizabeth, Heida Reed lacked something. There is perhaps a lack of courage among cast members. She resembles Graham's description of the character better than Townsend, from what I recall of the original story, and offers a number of scenes that are good enough to be praiseworthy. Regardless, I kept looking for more depth from her in her portrayal. This might well have been partly the director's fault, though, as this was a constant problem for me with nearly every other actor in this version.
As for the actress chosen for the part of Prudie Paynter, Beatie Edney, she gave a far more convincing performance as Annabella in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (1996). I could not believe her as Prudie, as in most of her scenes she seems to be trying to find her way. Poor directing? Perhaps. One can only assume that may have been at fault throughout.
Neither televised version of Poldark is 100% within keeping of Graham's books, although this latest version does make a hash out of the plot at times. When held up against the first attempt at doing Graham's books justice, our most recent version falls short.
Many fans might see Aidan Turner as having been properly cast, but was he really the right sort of an actor for the part? Sadly, his acting skills are not on par with those of his predecessor, Robin Ellis, whose years of experience in the theatre as well as in series such as Elizabeth R, along with his greater depth and charisma, made him the best choice. That is to say, Ellis is the deeper and therefore the better of the two actors if one really wishes to know the character that both men have portrayed. Again, we may have the director to thank for this lack of depth.
Ellis played Reverend Halse in this most recent adaptation. In it, he steals every scene in which his character is featured. His years of repertory theatre under the direction of the likes of Sir Ian McKellan shine out from the screen like a beacon, no matter how few his lines in a single scene may be. For me, this puts the less experienced cast of the 2015 version in the shade. He was never quite my type where looks are concerned (even though he is an attractive man and I do like my men tall), so this is not in any way an attempt on my part to compare the two Ross Poldarks via appearance alone. Aidan's charisma may be found mainly in his sensuous looks. I suppose he could grow further as an actor if allowed time for it, as he's certainly not without promise. But do I believe him at all when he's showing off his modern "sixpack" muscles for the camera during the shirtless farming scene? Please do not bore me with anything so artificial and untrue to both time and place! And kindly do not insult the intelligence of your viewers! Nobody had a weight room back then. In fact, the sporting exercises which George Warleggan is shown mastering are much more true to period than anything which would have produced a 21st century "sixpack" midriff. Let's stay true to character and period, both, shall we?
Speaking of Warleggan, the actor who won the part, Jack Farthing, struggles with his role throughout, yet cannot achieve the kind of brilliance required to suspend my disbelief. This disappointed me greatly. He reminds me more of a spoiled aristocratic brat than of the more worldly, down to earth, social climbing Warleggan, which is a pity, as he does not lack talent. It is obvious that he was poorly cast in this instance, however. Surely that was not his fault. His portrayal lacks solid grounding, gravitas, and a sense of thought provoking inner turmoil one comes to see in both the books and the first of the two series. I think a more experienced actor would have been preferable.
Eleanor Tomlinson as Demelza was not unwisely cast, thank goodness. Indeed, she outshines Turner in believability often enough to where it seems to draw out more of his abilities as an actor, which was a refreshing experience for me. I found her performance to be one of the best this cast has to offer. The fact that I am a longtime fan of Angharad Rees' work in the same role does not in any way diminish my appreciation for Tomlinson's performance, and this has surprised me. Chalk one up for Tomlinson's portrayal, then. Well done!
The show's production values really left me feeling nonplused at times. The editing of the 2015 version, especially during Series One, is too bad for words. I've never edited any film in my life, and yet even I could see how some shots had been marred by rough handling. People's facial expressions were being undermined, and even the beauty of the Cornish coastline got mistreated. Such an abusive approach left me constantly in a quandary as to whether to give up on the show, or whether to continue on, hoping that the problem would eventually be resolved.
This problem was only made worse by the rush job that was done to the first parts of the story. A few important plot features went missing, thus making certain motivational aspects less clear. Such rushing allowed for less time to fully appreciate each character's position within the story's plot. Character development is crucial in any lengthier drama, something one must have time for. This made certain scenes seem artificial. After all, believability is everything in both theatre and film. Such reckless mishandling of both the story and the editing came very close to destroying any interest I had in this newer version of the series. In fact, had it not been for the addition of Robin Ellis as Reverend Halse, I'd have given up a lot sooner than I eventually would. Thankfully, the editing does improve, but only after trying the viewer's patience for much too long. I kept saying to myself, "This isn't a commercial. It's a period drama! What is wrong with the editor?"
Too many cups of cappuccino, one wonders?
And then there's my continuing displeasure over the lack of attention to reality by the modern crop of costume designers for period dramas such as Poldark. One thing that the show's designer, Marianne Agertoft was very good at in this case was the color palette for the character, Demelza. Her greens, in particular, impress this history nerd, as they look so in keeping with that era as to be very nearly perfect. Here is one example of such a period green:
Readers may find that I'm not generally stingy with my praise if ever I find something that I see has merit. However, these two series often miss the mark in a number of disappointing ways. One wonders how inattentive the producers of both actually see their audiences as being. This goes double for the inevitable history nerds among those audiences.
Both are set in the 18th century, at least in part. Both sport some interesting and sometimes wonderful scenery. Both offer us a look at basic fashion ideas from each era. Despite their visual appeal, however, neither one quite manages to suspend my disbelief for long enough to keep me hooked. Perhaps that is the natural lot of this nerd, but then, I am by nature apt to spot inaccuracies of character, plot, and design.
I'll begin with Outlander.
Overall, and from what I've been able to discern through viewing Series One and Two, the acting is above average, sometimes bordering on quite fine. Although there are but few truly genius moments in the actors' performances, at least some of the actors can be said to be believable. I therefore have some genuine concerns over the casting, especially in one particular case. A few Scots brogues weren't entirely mastered in time for filming, but this is surely understandable, as any true Scot will tell you. (And here I will naturally have to confess to the patient reader that my own attempts at speaking with a Scots accent are bad enough to be embarrassing.)
Caitríona Balfe's performance does not bother me as much as her appearance does. That, as well as her lack of courage for diving deeply enough during some moments of grief or despair, have left me looking for more from her costar, Sam Heughan for more believable acting, although their argument scenes in Series 1 and 2 all rang true for me. Her dialog often made me wince. Sometimes my discomfiture continued throughout an entire episode. After all, she has been saddled with some late 20th century lines to say when in character from the 1940's while still living magically in 18th century Scotland. I cannot say for certain at this point whether the original author is entirely at fault here, or whether it is a problem with the script instead, having no copies of either currently to hand.
You may think me catty when I say that she looks too modern to me in both body type and movements, as she reminds me of a current fashion model visually, and not at all of a woman of World War II Britain. Looking at other past period style productions, one can find better casting as far as looks go. You won't find anybody built like her in any 1940's photos and films that I've seen. Whoever is doing the casting for historical fiction productions needs to have an eye for detail, such as where would one find such a body build other than in the here and now and on a fashion catwalk?
Yes, she is a model turned actress. Yes, she is very strikingly pretty and sometimes delivers a believable performance, but she's still a model at heart, and really much too tall and modern in appearance to fit the styles of either period that's shown in the series. According to a BBC article entitled, Statistics reveal Britain's 'Mr and Mrs Average', "The average woman in England weighed 11 stone (70.2kg) and was 5ft 3in tall (161.6cm)." That would translate to around 154 pounds on average. Why not cast somebody more true to period, someone who could carry off the costumes as they were actually worn in the 1940's? That would have made even her 1740's clothes fit her in a more realistic way, meaning true to character. She might still have been both curvy and trim while suspending disbelief. Balfe is 5'10" in height, and while curvy, she is still fairly close to model thin, making her appearance much less believable to this nerdy critic. The world is not made up of 21st century models and never has been. They could have cast someone with more acting experience, an actress whose looks we would appreciate but who wouldn't constantly remind us of her prior training as a fashion model. All of these factors beg this nerdy critic to ask the following:
When will casting directors and period drama production department heads realize that they owe us, the viewers, some sign that they've cared enough about the suspension of our disbelief?
And it wasn't just the obvious lack of understanding as to how personal in fit one's stays (what we might call a corset) would have been back then that kept ruining my viewing enjoyment, although it was one of the first major costuming gaffers I spotted right away. Such a lack of attention to detail is all too often a troubling circumstance of the designer going for a fairytale or fantasy approach rather than taking the more accurate path. All too often, the design of Claire's costumes simply cannot measure up. It makes no difference whether the costume designer in charge was nominated for an Emmy for her work as long as it is not period enough for such a period piece. Pretty though her clothing often looks on Balfe's model frame (as she does model everything ably well), it cannot satisfy this history nerd. I know my opinion is bound to be unpopular to die hard fans of the series, especially those who really do not mind it when a designer strays too far away from reality. However, one must also factor in how any fantastical time traveling story needs to remain as anchored in reality as possible in order for it to at least appear plausible.
Part of the problem starts with the story. With all due respect to Diana Gabaldon, her lack of logic turns up so often that I found it hard to finish reading her popular books. This was back when they were first being sold, with readers avidly gobbling up each new volume as soon as it could appear in print. We were passing the books around between family members, trading reads as is the custom in our family, and so I thought perhaps that it would be more fun to at least try to stay the course. I struggled to do so right into the fourth book of the series, Drums of Autumn, but then needed to refresh my palate with some more refined fiction. Though I carried some of my initial disappointed feelings with me along for the ride when first trying the televised version, I was willing to try and keep my mind open in case its producers had done something wonderful with it after all.
In several scenes during Series One, Claire is dressed inappropriately for the weather. The women surrounding her may be seen often wearing their shawls out of necessity, and yet she barely keeps herself covered enough for the indoors, let alone for a breezy day when cheeks are naturally blushing due to brisk conditions. Why are her shoulders and bosom left uncovered outdoors during chilly weather? To show off her looks, no doubt. But that simply would not have happened. Scotland is by nature a cold place, with weather year round in the highlands that is seldom toasty warm and with much rainy weather to boot. Back then, the northern hemisphere was experiencing what is known today as a "little ice age," during which summers were short, with snow and frozen rivers, etc notably more prevalent than had been the norm for quite some time before the 1740's. This was reflected in the artwork of the era by a rise in the popularity of snow scenes, sometimes involving skaters on rivers and ponds. These factors are what lead me to say that, with all things considered, she looks unnecessarily exposed to the elements in all such scenes.
A Jacobite lady in her real Outlander era apparel.
And then there is the problem of the paucity of proper head coverings for the character of Claire, as the portrait of a Jacobite lady, above, shows. Notice the gold braid along with the very fine fabrics worn. Then notice the small, delicate hat she is wearing. Even well to do women often wore headwear both indoors and out during the time period. The same was true for almost all men. Whether this was the author's fault prior to production or not, I cannot say, as it has been many years since I tried reading the books. I think it is awkward for Claire, a 1940's woman who most certainly would have been in the habit of wearing hats routinely, to spend nearly all of the time in the chill Scottish Highland weather wearing nothing on her head. It simply wasn't done. Women's caps for indoor use sometimes were worn along with brimmed hats when they went out, as this 18th century painting by Hogarth shows. This was the standard for most levels of society, including that of Claire and Jamie, yet neither of the fist 2 Series of this show seem to take that into account.
Caps, bonnets and mobcaps were the norm all over northern Europe and the British Isles then. All of this would have been fairly easy for Terry Dresbach, the costume designer for the series, to have taken into consideration, even as early on as the first two series. Despite my personal history of having made period garb for a number of eras, this is not mere envy on my part, but more of a chance to set the record straight. After all, what on earth possessed Dresbach to add such anachronistic features to Claire's wedding gown, especially in the areas of both neckline and sleeves? What can she have been thinking? Even if the gown had an imaginary back story of having been brought from 16th century Italy and then re-trimmed or re-fitted for the show's 18th century Scottish wedding, it most certainly would never have fit any woman as tall as Balfe, especially through the neckline and torso. Please insult my intelligence no longer!
All historicity (or lack thereof) aside, there is one more fault with the televised version of Outlander, and that is that it comes out of an apparently lusty nature that the author of the books on which it has been based shows her reader time after time. It's truly inescapable. I've actually found myself thinking (this time admittedly in a very catty way) of privately calling the series by the discourteous appellate of "Smutlander." (Mean of me, I know. Two of my female family members would really complain if they knew this about me.)
Perhaps I've been spoiled by better quality writing. My favorite fiction author is Dorothy Dunnett, the best creator of Scottish historical fiction - or indeed, of any genre under the heading of historical fiction - in my experience. Dorothy Dunnett (affectionately called DD by her fans) did include some sensuous bedroom scenes in her books, but she never once strayed into the realms of soft porn. Her approach was more subtle, showing a sense of value to her appreciative readers. With all due respect to Ms Gabaldon, but how many soft porn scenes must one sit through before one may be allowed to get back to the plot? I know I am not alone in feeling this way. Some may see me as being too old fashioned or else stodgy, but I see all such gratuitous sex scenes as being totally superfluous. The series does try to stay truthful to the story line, which is fine in and of itself, but I am uninterested in knowing that much about anyone else's private sex life, whether fictional or real. Things could have been implied without being overtly obvious, and viewers would still have gotten the gist.
As for Sam's portrayal of the hero, Jamie Fraser, despite any distractions he may offer by way of his steamy good looks, I found it to be both believable and interesting to view - with one exception. I do not see how anyone would believe that he'd have kept his virginity till his first night of married life.
And now for my assessment of the 2015 Poldark.
Thankfully, this Poldark series does not stray that far away from decorum into the dark, murky waters of soft porn, and yet one still is quite well enough aware as to who's done what with whom. We have author Winston Graham to thank for this, naturally.
I am fortunate enough to have seen the 1970's series, with Robin Ellis and Angharad Rees as the two main stars, so I will attempt to compare it to the more modern one. I read the books with lingering interest as well. I still can relate to them, as they were built as all good reads are, with a supportive framework of both time and place. No sooner had I finished reading one, then I wanted to read the next.
The first series based on the books had its flaws, to be sure, most of them being technical. There were no digital cameras or Photoshop software back then. Even the title opener is rough around the edges by today's standards. However, I can find no fault with any of the acting, apart from that of the woefully miscast actor who was the first of two to play Dr Dwight Enys (Richard Morant was a better actor than many, but looked out of place in this instance). My one remaining quibble over casting was with Jill Townsend as Elizabeth, as she does not fit Graham's description of that character. Despite this, I found that her acting skills convinced me that she was Elizabeth. The 2015 Elizabeth, Heida Reed lacked something. There is perhaps a lack of courage among cast members. She resembles Graham's description of the character better than Townsend, from what I recall of the original story, and offers a number of scenes that are good enough to be praiseworthy. Regardless, I kept looking for more depth from her in her portrayal. This might well have been partly the director's fault, though, as this was a constant problem for me with nearly every other actor in this version.
As for the actress chosen for the part of Prudie Paynter, Beatie Edney, she gave a far more convincing performance as Annabella in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (1996). I could not believe her as Prudie, as in most of her scenes she seems to be trying to find her way. Poor directing? Perhaps. One can only assume that may have been at fault throughout.
Neither televised version of Poldark is 100% within keeping of Graham's books, although this latest version does make a hash out of the plot at times. When held up against the first attempt at doing Graham's books justice, our most recent version falls short.
Many fans might see Aidan Turner as having been properly cast, but was he really the right sort of an actor for the part? Sadly, his acting skills are not on par with those of his predecessor, Robin Ellis, whose years of experience in the theatre as well as in series such as Elizabeth R, along with his greater depth and charisma, made him the best choice. That is to say, Ellis is the deeper and therefore the better of the two actors if one really wishes to know the character that both men have portrayed. Again, we may have the director to thank for this lack of depth.
Ellis played Reverend Halse in this most recent adaptation. In it, he steals every scene in which his character is featured. His years of repertory theatre under the direction of the likes of Sir Ian McKellan shine out from the screen like a beacon, no matter how few his lines in a single scene may be. For me, this puts the less experienced cast of the 2015 version in the shade. He was never quite my type where looks are concerned (even though he is an attractive man and I do like my men tall), so this is not in any way an attempt on my part to compare the two Ross Poldarks via appearance alone. Aidan's charisma may be found mainly in his sensuous looks. I suppose he could grow further as an actor if allowed time for it, as he's certainly not without promise. But do I believe him at all when he's showing off his modern "sixpack" muscles for the camera during the shirtless farming scene? Please do not bore me with anything so artificial and untrue to both time and place! And kindly do not insult the intelligence of your viewers! Nobody had a weight room back then. In fact, the sporting exercises which George Warleggan is shown mastering are much more true to period than anything which would have produced a 21st century "sixpack" midriff. Let's stay true to character and period, both, shall we?
Speaking of Warleggan, the actor who won the part, Jack Farthing, struggles with his role throughout, yet cannot achieve the kind of brilliance required to suspend my disbelief. This disappointed me greatly. He reminds me more of a spoiled aristocratic brat than of the more worldly, down to earth, social climbing Warleggan, which is a pity, as he does not lack talent. It is obvious that he was poorly cast in this instance, however. Surely that was not his fault. His portrayal lacks solid grounding, gravitas, and a sense of thought provoking inner turmoil one comes to see in both the books and the first of the two series. I think a more experienced actor would have been preferable.
Eleanor Tomlinson as Demelza was not unwisely cast, thank goodness. Indeed, she outshines Turner in believability often enough to where it seems to draw out more of his abilities as an actor, which was a refreshing experience for me. I found her performance to be one of the best this cast has to offer. The fact that I am a longtime fan of Angharad Rees' work in the same role does not in any way diminish my appreciation for Tomlinson's performance, and this has surprised me. Chalk one up for Tomlinson's portrayal, then. Well done!
The show's production values really left me feeling nonplused at times. The editing of the 2015 version, especially during Series One, is too bad for words. I've never edited any film in my life, and yet even I could see how some shots had been marred by rough handling. People's facial expressions were being undermined, and even the beauty of the Cornish coastline got mistreated. Such an abusive approach left me constantly in a quandary as to whether to give up on the show, or whether to continue on, hoping that the problem would eventually be resolved.
This problem was only made worse by the rush job that was done to the first parts of the story. A few important plot features went missing, thus making certain motivational aspects less clear. Such rushing allowed for less time to fully appreciate each character's position within the story's plot. Character development is crucial in any lengthier drama, something one must have time for. This made certain scenes seem artificial. After all, believability is everything in both theatre and film. Such reckless mishandling of both the story and the editing came very close to destroying any interest I had in this newer version of the series. In fact, had it not been for the addition of Robin Ellis as Reverend Halse, I'd have given up a lot sooner than I eventually would. Thankfully, the editing does improve, but only after trying the viewer's patience for much too long. I kept saying to myself, "This isn't a commercial. It's a period drama! What is wrong with the editor?"
Too many cups of cappuccino, one wonders?
And then there's my continuing displeasure over the lack of attention to reality by the modern crop of costume designers for period dramas such as Poldark. One thing that the show's designer, Marianne Agertoft was very good at in this case was the color palette for the character, Demelza. Her greens, in particular, impress this history nerd, as they look so in keeping with that era as to be very nearly perfect. Here is one example of such a period green:
One cannot complain in general about this particular costume, even when it lacks a proper head covering. It says "Demelza" down to the last stitch, from what I could tell. Such a lovely green would have been available even for home dying vats, as the plants used to make it would have been widely available then. In addition, it makes nearly all of the costumes that were made for Claire in the Outlander series look less than professional in design as it fits both the era and the character's circumstances.
My one complaint regarding Demelza's wardrobe is a fussy one dealing with the bottom hem of another correctly green article of clothing, that being a short jacket which fastened cleverly left of center, giving it an almost "double breasted look" (barring the lack of a second row of buttons). How my seamstress fingers itched to tackle that jarring jacket front hem! Suffering as I am today with a serious eye condition along with arthritis, I know that even I might have repaired that bedraggled front edge with a seam ripper and some judicious whip stitching that would have taken me less than half an hour to complete. Despite the character's lack of funds at that point in the story, surely one of her friends would have noticed and suggested the simple refinishing of that droopy hem. There's no excuse for such slipshod work, when every other part of that costume seemed spot on correct both in style and in keeping with the character wearing it.
All things considered, given a choice, and acting notwithstanding, I'd have to choose the 2015 Poldark over Outlander for both its accuracy and its casting. However, that does not mean that there aren't a few problems here and there for the men's costumes. Most notable among the mistakes made was the inclusion of "Y" back braces or suspenders, the invention of which had not occurred as early as the 1780's. Though there was something a bit similar in France during the latter half of the 1700's, they were differently built, did not function in quite the same way, and were usually not worn by farmers. Modern suspenders were invented in 1820 by Albert Thurston, placing their use by most men decades after the era of Poldark.
In summation, it was generally such factors as poor casting or the implausible costuming or timing of events (one should never rush a good drama) which made me start losing interest. And I really did try as hard as I could to give both series a really good chance at impressing this nerd. In the end, Poldark won over Outlander for me.
My grades for both in overall terms:
Poldark 3 and 1/2 stars (out of 5)
My grades for both in overall terms:
Poldark 3 and 1/2 stars (out of 5)
Outlander 2 and 1/2 stars
