Watching 'The Witcher'

Fantasy can be done badly. Exceptionally so. Very rarely do we see the likes of The Lord of the Rings on our screens (and no, I am not comparing Netflix’s The Witcher to J.R.R. Tolkein’s level of world building).

Since the arguably disappointing ending to the Game of Thrones series, there has been a hole within the fantasy genre on our T.V. screens. A lot of anticipation for The Witcher lined this series up to be “the next Game of Thrones”, a claim that the creators of the show have tried to throw off; they do not want to be a carbuncle leeching off the veritable success that the former megalith had. Instead, they want to present a different form of fantasy.

Personally, I was rather keen to see what they did with The Witcher. I would not like to say that I am an expert in the world – far from it. However, I enjoyed my romps within the open-world RPG of The Witcher 3 as much as the next person: it was gritty and dark. It was a world where monsters were not always the disgusting creatures that go bump in the night. Instead, it was a diverse world, one where different belief systems clashed with each other, war was creating turmoil for innocents and even ‘good guys’ had faults.

I believe that the Netflix series manages to get this across beautifully.

However, the series is not based on the games – it is, rather, the book franchise created by Andrzej Sapkowski, a man notorious for hating any and all renditions of his beloved creation. The original attempt at televising the story, The Hexer (2001), left a lot to be desired for the most part. Even the immensely successful video game franchise by Projekt Red left a sour taste in Sapkowski’s mouth (although this may be due to the terrible signing deal Sapkowski went for). Yet, with this most recent adaptation, Sapkowski has seemed to praise the creation, particularly the performance of A-lister Henry Cavill:

"I was more than happy with Henry Cavill's appearance as The Witcher. He's a real professional. Just as Viggo Mortensen gave his face to Aragorn [in The Lord of the Rings], so Henry gave his to Geralt - and it shall be forever so."

So what has made this adaptation ring out for the infamously hard-to-please author?

The Witcher follows the story of Geralt of Rivia, a witcher who hunts dangerous and mythical monsters for money. A witcher is a human that has willingly undergone mutations – these allow him heightened strength and senses whilst also making him a pariah within the human communities. The irony of this is that, often, he is their only chance for survival. The story,

however, is interjected repeatedly by the arcs of Yennefer of Vengerburg and Princess Cirilla of Cintra. The former’s storyline presents her progression from scorned hunchback to beautiful and reckless sorceress whilst the latter’s follows her escape from the clutches of the ‘big bad’: Nilfgaard. The main aim of the series: Geralt must find Ciri.

From the first episode, there are a few things to take note of. First of all, the CGI is…not great. The immediate creature that burst onto the scene was rather shambolic to say the least. This is improved in episode 3, though. However, this is overshadowed entirely by Cavill’s portrayal of the main character. From my perspective, Cavill manages to convey every inch of Geralt; his voice, mannerisms and look are absolutely perfect. And it’s understandable why this is. Cavill put a lot of effort into this role – he’s an avid lover of the books and the games and so he wanted to get this role right. And, readers, I can most definitely say he did just that! Geralt is seen to be a rather unwilling hero as he clumsily finds his way into all manner of political fights whilst trying desperately to stay out of them. The acerbic nature of this character is also well portrayed – Cavill has mastered the ability to convey so much in a single word or less. However, what I personally love the most about this character is the fact that he is imperfect. He can make bad or ruthless choices, he runs away from his problems and delves into his work to escape. Cavill presents a very nuanced character under the gruff and rugged exterior which is an absolute pleasure to watch.

His rather rude character is accompanied by a host of companions, the main ones being the other two protagonists: Yennefer and Ciri. Much like Geralt, these two are also presented with their own failings. Yennefer, portrayed well by Anya Chalotra, is the hardened and resentful sorceress who tries to blame others for the mistakes and choices that she’s made in her bid for power. However, she is also insightful and incredibly perceptive when her view is not clouded. Personally, I have always found this character to be frustrating; she’s manipulative and abusive at times, exceptionally selfish and stubborn to a fault. I felt the

same frustrated anger for Chalotra’s portrayal so she was definitely doing something right. Her proud and dangerous persona were well conveyed. I have always found that a character who refuses to take the blame and instead holds others responsible for their own actions is a difficult one to pull off: they often come across as a child having a tantrum. Whilst I would say that, occasionally, Chalotra stumbles into this pit, this is not due to her acting ability. From my opinion, she is more than able to portray both sides to Yennefer – the powerful and unstoppable mage AND the vulnerable and caring woman who just yearns to regain what she has lost. Whilst I would say that the show spends less time in pursuing this nuance (the writing for her does not weave these two sides together as well as it does with Geralt), Chalotra does well with what she is given. Her lines and character are rather ham-fisted at times which often gives her character less subtlety but I would argue that this is due to the writing as opposed to the actress.

Cirilla also suffers from this problem at times but gets away with it more frequently due to her age and upbringing. Twelve-year-old Princess Cirilla is played by Freya Allan. She is spoilt, ignorant and headstrong. She is also left to fend for herself in a world she has never been able to experience. Therefore, much like a child would, she makes bad choices, makes friends with the wrong people and, ultimately, feels rather passive throughout the majority of

her storyline. Allan, however, portrays her exceedingly well, showing the fiery side to the character that most pre-existing Witcher fans will know and love. I would say that this character is one of the least explored of the three: there is a lot of mystery behind her importance that will be further examined in later seasons. Her character arc is also more predictable in this season than the others – her adventures turn her from spoilt ignorant girl-child to bitter, cynical and distrusting. But that’s fine! Even predictable storylines can be good if utilised and portrayed effectively and Allan does this well with the material she has been handed. I look forward to seeing how this character develops in later episodes and hope that she is given a little more to handle than just running.

Whilst these are the three main characters, one cannot review The Witcher without speaking about Joey Batey’s Jaskier. Whilst the name is the original taken from the book series, fans will know him as Dandelion the bard, Geralt’s unchosen companion and one that often gets himself into trouble that Geralt needs to get him out of. Jaskier is adorable. Batey’s comic timing is perfection for this role and his ability to bounce off of the negativity from Cavill’s

Geralt is brilliant to see. He is absolutely devoted to his muse and offers a light-hearted tone amidst all the drama and destruction that takes place within the rest of the show. You cannot have a dramatic tragedy without comedy to heighten it and Batey accomplishes this with aplomb. His character is also cleverly used by the writers to highlight the hypocrisy so regularly seen within humanity: his songs and ballads are written for what sells, not what is true and Jaskier is fully aware (and remorseless) about this. Batey lends his musical talents to this character well, his own singing voice and lute-playing talents allowing Jaskier to feel more real. Rarely is an actor cast that can actually play the instrument that they are required to play and so it does not feel quite right. Batey was a perfect choice for this role.

One thing I would say about this show: it does not hold your hand. This is not the series to be watching whilst wistfully scrolling through your social media. You. Must. Pay. Attention. Information is presented to you in visual hints or in rather secondary lines. To understand the actions of a character, you may need to wait a couple of seconds to hear the line that explains what they have just done. For these instances, I applaud and thank the creators. Finally, we have a show where, if you do not engage your brain, you will forever be confused. Do not get me wrong, I am a big fan of films and media that you can just enjoy; shows where you can switch off and still understand everything when you have not paid attention for the last three episodes. They’re relaxing. But this cannot be all of your media consumption. The Witcher makes you think, infer and piece sections of the exposition together. For instance, the three storylines (Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri) are not linear; the timelines do not converge until later in the season. Because of this, opinions of characters change as you learn more about them from other perspectives and information comes to light that adds to the tragedy of previous events. I will admit, it was rather confusing at first – it took me a while to understand how all the stories weaved together and it was not always obvious at first glance where everything fitted in. However, there were always hints – either aural or visual – that allowed you to work out the connections within the timeline.

Make-up and costume are also to be commended. Whilst the costume choices for the fashionable Yennefer are questionable at times, generally everything is nicely seated in the historical period of medieval Poland. Although dubbed as a fantasy, The Witcher is not a pure example of the genre. Instead, it is based in a fairytale version of a historical period and country. You can see these inspirations within the uncanny costume designs – they are familiar to look at and yet oddly stylised in such a way as to present the more fantastical nature of the source material. Characters also look dirty when they need to. There is no side-stepping around the issue of blood and sweat. A particular example of this is in episode 3 after a rather brilliantly shot and brutal fight; Geralt looks visibly broken and exhausted by the experience. Bloody cuts, dirt and mud are all over him and his pauldrons are destroyed by the end of it. The fighting is not glamorous in this world.

Fight choreography is always a rather contentious and controversial topic – what looks good does not always make sense within a fight scenario. Spins and flourishes are pointless in proper life-endangering combat: a character would not care to make the fight look good for the audience watching them, rather they would want to get rid of the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible. The Witcher manages to balance along the line of what is realistic and what is epic to watch. Cavill went to great lengths to learn swordplay when taking the role and it shows. The kills are, on the whole, efficient and rather brutal because of it. Generally, energy is not expended when it does not need to be. I would say, however, that this same

straight-forward nature is not always adhered to. This is particularly apparent with Vilgefortz in the final episode: he is trying to get to his target as quickly as possible with as much

surprise as possible so why not include a couple of parkour moves in the process? His entrance into the fight felt rather out of place in the efficiency of the previously shown fight styles. Now, you could argue it is because the character is a brash show-off but I would contest that he is a trained soldier first with his life on the line that is about to attack another highly trained opponent. Brash and a show-off, yes, but he is not an idiot.

This, however, is one of the bigger issues with The Witcher: the secondary characters feel a little hollower and more rushed beyond the protagonists. This is more keenly noticed in the antagonists, Cahir and his sorceress. Similar to Ciri, who struggles with a lack of exploration, these two characters are also relatively unknown. Beyond catching the princess, little is known about their motives, their personalities (aside from being zealous). Cahir is eventually given a little more personality when it is hinted at that he wants to help rather than conquer but even that insight is brief and intangible at best. Nilfgaard is portrayed as the conquering force – the growing power that wants to consolidate it by destroying all of its competitors but the season never explains why beyond proving other nations wrong. These particular elements within the story feel underdeveloped and unexplored so I can only hope that this is going to be explained in later episodes.

Scripting is also a problem within the show. There are some absolutely fantastic moments within the series that really make you love the world and the characters within it. But the lines can be clumsy and jarring; they lack a flow at points that is required to show the connections between characters and allow the story to progress. As well as this, whilst I appreciate that nudity is something of a staple for the show, there is rather a lot of unnecessary moments. Why is there so much in episode 5? It does not add to anything. At least the Mayor’s moment of nakedness adds to the humour of the scene, and at least there are legitimised (although at times questionable) reasons for the amount of nakedness for Yennefer. However, one thing I would say is that Geralt is also nude throughout a portion of his screen time – I do not think I have ever seen a male character have so many baths!

Overall, I really enjoyed The Witcher. Whilst it occasionally has all the subtlety of a brick when conveying its main themes and messages (what is really monstrous? all choices have consequences and, I dare not forget, DESTINY!), it has moments of genuine brilliance. The world building is chaotic at times and a lot of ideas are forced to be accepted rather than understood due to a lack of explanation. However, the acting is brilliant and the character arcs make sense. The more fleshed out characters are very enjoyable to watch grow. Aesthetically, the show is exceptionally pleasing and, whilst the show is by no means perfect, it is understandable why Sapkowski is happy with this rendition of his work.

(All images are stills from Netflix's The Witcher or are promotional art for it)