The success of GoT predictably spawned imitators on film and on TV, and even the History Channel (?), partnered with MGM, got in on the game with
Vikings. I initially tried watching an episode or two a few years ago, but stopped, but then Netflix’s
Vikings: Valhalla encouraged me to revisit the show. So, belatedly, I decided to retry the series from the start. I’m mostly glad I did. The first few seasons are lower budget, and they rely more on physical sets than GoT did, which is all to the good. But things start to turn when the show depicts the sacking of Paris late in the third season, and the reliance on CGI only grows from that point. Still, the look of the show is often more satisfying than GoT and other, similar entertainments. I am not a Dark Ages historian, but some quick review of online sources (mostly Wikipedia since I don’t really care about the Dark Ages much) and some memories of some of the histories I have read indicate that the show plays fast and loose with real history, jumbling events and timelines, and so on, but it makes for a more cohesive and dramatic storyline, so that’s fine. It’s not a documentary.
The entire series hinges on the success of Travis Fimmel as Ragnar Lothbrok. I don’t recall seeing him in anything else, and at first one doesn’t really notice much about his portrayal of the possible Viking, but much like Wagner Moura in
Narcos, when he exits the show, one notices. The actors who play his sons all display certain of his affectations less successfully, and they all lack the same degree of charisma. So successful is Fimmel in creating his character, that one doesn’t mind wasting time to see how the show’s producers and directors direct the action that occurs without him. And what they do is crib from GoT more than a little. For instance, there’s some mysticism; a sadistic and twisted young ruler equivalent of King Joffrey; a dwarf; a Night King equivalent (a Russian as it turns out!); hot lesbians; and violence aplenty, including the especially gruesome execution method known as the “blood eagle”. The use of graphic violence increases as the seasons go on and the budgets increased. The show’s budget for prosthetic limbs and fake heads must have been very large. Also, the show injects modern politics as women regularly became leaders of Viking earldoms and kingdoms (who knows, maybe they did) and also fought effectively alongside menfolk (who knows, maybe that happened), but one just goes along with it. And when it comes to women, this show bests GoT. The women are more beautiful on average, and they are portrayed in a more complex manner, which, the supreme and not entirely believable fighting prowess aside, is a good thing.
As to non-Lothbrok related acting, it’s a mixed bag. Gabriel Byrne was the big name at the outset of the show, and he does good work, but he quickly exits, and one is left with a parade of lesser-known actors. The best known to me is Linus Roache, who is excellent as King Ecbert of Wessex. Lothaire Bluteau does good work as Emperor Charles II of Francia, much better than Morgane Polanski (yes, of those Polanskis) as his daughter. Showrunner Michael Hirst also produced the OTT
The Tudors, and he brings in Jonathan Rhys Meyers to chew the scenery as the sword-wielding priest Heahmund later in this series. He does not disappoint. Most of the female leads are good enough, with Katheryn Winnick and Alyssa Sutherland, playing two of Lothbrok’s very different wives, the best of the group. And for fun, there’s the gorgeous Karima Adebibe playing Byzantine abbess/composer Kassia rather against type. And what Nordic themed entertainment would be complete without a Skarsgård, here Gustaf Skarsgård, who plays shipbuilder and populator of Iceland Floki in a memorable way.
The show offers ample hours of entertainment and is worth watching overall.
