The Pillars of the Earth

I'm still enjoying it, and so, remarkably, is my husband who rarely watches the TV

It's a bit hokum, but enjoyable - petely's absolutely right - it is Cadfael meets Dallas . . . or MiRABomer Murders meets Time Team :D
 
Yes - but I think the tax breaks that show gets is why it's called an Irish-Canadian production. Basically, the Irish are willing to not tax it as much as normal as long as it's called that so that other productions see what's being done in Ireland and will consider filming stuff there as well. It's basically free advertising for the Irish Film industry.
 
I've never read the book but am really enjoying the TV series and find it reasonably easy to follow.

Prior Philip is definitely the most likeable of the bunch. I hope nothing bad happens to him!
 
But he's already strayed off the straight and narrow - dodgy deals with the Bishop, lying about saving the saint's skull from the fire . . .

I fear it'll end in tears!
 
Having watched both episodes I'm finding it a bit hard going mainly because it seems stock full of cliched characters with no redeeming features or empathetic qualities. The scheming wannabe LorRAB of the Manor, a corrupt vulpine Bishop, an honest Prior forced to tell a white lie about the relic, the honest but randy builder, it's all a bit predictable. The plot seems to flit about like a gadfly, and I'm sorry but Matthew McFadyen's accent is wierd and more Mumbai than Meirionydd, and I find it distracting - it would have been far better for him to not have tried to have an accent - and that goes for the cod RADA Mummerset the peasants speak as well, it's very irritating.

Despite all that, I think I'll keep with it for now, because if you suspend disbelief and treat it in the same vein as the BBC's "Robin Hood" and "Merlin" with their let's take liberites with history style, it can be quite entertaining, I just wish the plot didn't follow the obvious course so often and kept us guessing a bit. I mean, as soon as we saw the red paint on the statue, and the close ups of the skull, we just knew the "bleeding skull" prophesy was going to bite King Stephen on the bum, didn't we?
 
From what little I've read of the period she tenRAB to be called either Queen Matilda or Emperess Maud.
Some sources claim she shouldn't really have called herself Empress as she was never proclaimed such, but as she was married to the Holy Roman Emperor it seems fair enough to me.
As moretears notes the Saxon version of her hame is Maud and the Holy Roman Empire covered a lot of Germanic lanRAB.
 
jason this should be marvelous... but its not Disc World
:D
I would never have believed i would be so gripped by the story of a Prior building a Cathederal in the 12th Century.
 
An argument can be made that Irish tax breaks can be construed as "Irish financing," sure. But I would think some tangible corporate involvement of an Irish nature would still have to be involved for the "producer" credit to be deserved or given.

And I apologize to people out there who find this kind of discussion pedantic and boring. It is interesting stuff to me at least.:D
 
It's interesting history - I remember Stephen and Matilda from primary school - but I don't think it's amazing drama or entertainment. I will keep watching however, as it may develop now.

It's hard to engage with quite so many characters so quickly and there wasn't much empathy built up for any of the real ones before their fate befell them. The script at the start was (understandably) in the Why this is 1125 and the throne is in danger and Hail bishop second cousin to me and brother to the duke of Normandy and loyal friend of my great uncle who fought in the bla bla war.

The Times says this is a mediaeval 'Rome' with just as much plotting and grpahic sex but it was relatively chaste and squeaky clean compared with 'Rome' or 'Spartacus' with the exception of one c word from Ian McShane and the witch peeing on him (a highlight!). I was expecting something more eyepoppingly gory and threatening like the similarly plotted and infamous Les Rois Maudits that ran on BBC2 in the 1970s, probably no one else is old enough to remember it, It was remade lavishly a few years ago in France, haven't seen the remake, wish they'd show that here.

For me it's far too obvious Pillars isn't shot in England and while the casting and acting is generally excellent there are some age discrepancies with the casting and the real historic characters But I will give it a chance as I suspect I will get more into it as if proceeRAB.
 
It seems pretty close to me.
Ellen has a much bigger role and I dont recall the Royals really featuring in their own right much at all, rather the effects of their actions on the people of Kingsbridge.
The book spreaRAB the action over a much longer period - I can understand them not wanting to do this here as the actors would have to be aged which doesn't always work too well. It means the main fabric of the cathedral seems to be built pretty fast though - perhaps there were a lot of Polish builders living around Kingsbridge at the time!
 
I loved it, although haven't read the book so don't know if it's a good version

I was on holiday in Normandy this year, so read up about the local history, including visiting Barfleur where The White Ship sailed from that sank, dorwning Henry's son

Very interesting period of history

And I know I shouldn't, but I still have a bit of a thing for Ian McShane after his Lovejoy days. He certainly doesn't choose his parts for the hairstyles, does he? But he makes a great baddie, so looking forward to the rest of the series - and then reading the book!
 
I don't believe that is or should be the job of the critic. That is the job of the press release.



That must be part of it because that is what their job is. Do they, with their knowledge and expertise, find these projects worthy or good? If they do, it informs me, particularly if I am familiar with the critic, what is in the programme that they think is worthy and good or derivative and rubbish. It's still up to me to make up my own mind if I choose to watch. My opinion is a matter wholly for me after watching but the critic, who is a lot more knowledgeable than me, has a more informed opinion. This doesn't diminish my ability to form my own opinion once I watch. I have no business forming any opinion on it if I don't watch.

Do you feel the same way about art critics or book critics? Do you come from a view that all valuation of art is a matter of personal taste and there is no "good" or "bad," just popular and not popular? What about things like structure and form? I'm genuinely interested.

For what it is worth, I do (or rather did as I watched the film some time ago on the back of similar critical raves) think that the parts of the review you quoted about Pan's Labyrinth was informative. Firstly, I am told that the film is a companion piece to The Devil's Backbone and from the same director. If I've seen The Devil's Backbone, this tells me a lot, particularly if I loved or loathed it. It also tells me that the themes are likely to be similar. I'm told that the film is visually rich
 
Thank goodness its autumn and we've got some decent television....YAY!

I loved the book and LOVE this too.

OK, it has its inaccuracies etc. but it really drew me in and I felt like I was there.

Can't wait for next week!
 
I'll start by saying that I really enjoyed The Pillars of the Earth. I've seen it all and found the wait between episodes interminable. It's hokum, but it's fun hokum.

However, I must take issue with this comment on professional critics. I think they are invaluable as is any expert in their chosen field. I've never understood the problem we have in this country for people being well-informed and educated. A good TV critic has an extensive knowledge not just of TV and its history, but of form and structure. This isn't pretentious. It's informative. It's not over-thinking things. It's analysing what's presented in a way that can add richness to the experience. It's only TV, but TV is the most pervasive and popular culture in the world today. Far more people regularly watch TV than read books or newspapers or go to the cinema. This degree of penetration is part of our daily life experience. That, I think, makes it important in learning to understand what it is, how it works and why it effects us.

A good critic isn't someone who agrees with one's own view. It's someone who can use their knowledge to add to our own more limited knowledge and experience in deciding what to watch or to think more on the things we have watched. Thinking isn't a bad thing.

I wish there were more good critics across the various types of media, particularly here. America is much better served online, for example, with people like Alan Sepinwall, Mo Ryan, the AV Club and others. Here, there's
 
I am enjoying it despite the diabolical liberties they are taking with the plot.

For instance.....The Sarah Parrish character. Regan, is being portrayed as having some kind of incestuous relationship with William......whereas in the book she regarRAB William as a bit of an idiot and there is no suggestion of this at all.
 
Back
Top