Something, Something, Act of Uniformity.

A little bit of frippery.

I took a couple of days off work last week to try and get my history reading back on track. As I mentioned a few posts back (here) this is mainly taking me into the world of Charles II. In the midst of this I felt the need to have a break from the written word and decided to revisit the TV series “Charles II: The Power & The Passion“. While I am aware it does not count as research it was at least vaguely relevant. The downsides of dramatisations of historical subject matter are many and are usually due to the need to simplify the story for the purpose serialisation and dramatic clarity. This is usually ok if it gets to the nub of the character, or the event, but is still rankles when important events and ideas that you are familiar with get mangled and distorted (events that are often more interesting than those chosen for focus by the screen writer).

However, the benefits usually lie in the nature of the media and sometimes historical dramas can give you visual tips on the clothes, the environment, the period, that are sometimes hard to reconstruct in the unfamiliar mind from contemporary images and description. That is assuming you can trust the production values and historical guidance underpinning the programme. The performance of a character on screen can also help to challenge assumptions that you may have developed in building up an idea of a person from the sources. I’m not suggesting that anyone should base their understanding of an historical figure solely on a TV play, but who hasn’t found greater understanding of Shakespeare from seeing it performed, seeing the iambic pentameter brought to life by the performer?

There can be an unfortunate side effect of this though. And it is one I have experienced since re-watching ‘The Power and the Passion”. Sometimes, the portrayal of a character, or just the actor involved can bugger up the image you had already carefully and painstakingly built up in your head. In my case, this has happened to the image in my head of Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon. Due to the quite excellent actor Ian McDiarmid’s portrayal of Charles’ advisor I am now unable to separate Clarendon from the Emperor in Star Wars (a character McDiarmid also played):

The Emperor from Star Wars

The Emperor from Star Wars

Earl of Clarendon

Earl of Clarendon

Combined with Family Guy this means I am now unable to read anything about Clarendon without doing so in this voice:

I am beset by the iniquities of contemporary culture and my own sponge brain.

Possibly less frippery and more interesting stuff later in the week.


5 thoughts on “Something, Something, Act of Uniformity.

  1. Pingback: Twitter Trackbacks for Something, Something, Act of Uniformity. « The Gentleman Administrator [] on

  2. Dainty

    I understand completely this appalling dilemma, stuck as I am, with the conflation of Robert Carlyle & James I. What galls about this, however, is Carlyle’s most unsympathetic portrayal of my beloved King. Playing him as a perverted letch with all the wit & sophistication of a crusading Goth, has left me with the slightly unpleasant image of James I bending awkwardly down on one knee to give a cavalier style blow job to a reluctant Thomas Percy.

    1. thegentlemanadministrator Post author

      Nick, Dainty, please allow me to reply in verse:

      Carlyle and James 1st conflated.
      Whilst poor Percy wound up fellated.
      And the Cloppenburg Press,
      Have got in a mess,
      Their typeface got pissed up and feinted.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s