Starz' "Camelot." Just because I can.

Anyone who knows me knows that I have a massive hate-boner for Michael Hirst. This guy ties with Philippa Gregory on my list of Horrible People Who Simplified And Over-Sexed Fascinating Eras of History. (To make matters worse, they both did it to the same era. Which happens to be MY FAVORITE EVER. Argh.) Seriously, I could go for days on why "Elizabeth" sucked, and why "The Tudors" took the "pleasure" entirely out of "guilty pleasure" for me. But really, it all comes down to one thing:

It takes more than sex to make something interesting.

This tenet - which I'm pretty sure is one held in high esteem by every writer I admire, and even many I don't - is trodden into the dirt every time Michael Hirst sets fingers to keyboard.

On the other hand. Even I watched some episodes of "The Tudors." Because dammit, I love me some French headdresses and historical name-drops. And honestly, I think I love the Arthurian mythos even more. So with "Game of Thrones" not due for another two weeks (HOW CAN I SURVIVE), I hopped on my trusty Internet and found the first episode of "Camelot," which The Abominable Hirst co-produces.

And holy crap, guys. This is what I want in my guilty pleasures.

Don't get me wrong. This is nothing like "Merlin," which I adore for its gleeful absurd whimsy and the sly winks it tosses as it flips the mythology on its head. "Camelot" is a weird mix of straight-up myth and modern pandering. We see Merlin transforming Uther into Gorlois; it doesn't get more straight-up myth than that. (Well, okay, you could have Insane!Lancelot chasing the Questing Beast, but we all know that NO ONE'S ever going to go that far.) But on the other hand... Lot marries Morgan instead of Morgause? And murders Arthur's foster-mother in the first episode?

...sure, whatever. I'll go with it.

The point is, I'm not defending the changes/variations/desecration/what-have-you. Neither am I denouncing them, because it's a fun show. My image of Arthur doesn't spend time lounging nekkid in green meadows with Kay's girlfriend, but I'm interested in the idea of a raw, reckless Arthur who doesn't take readily to power. I won't point out the fact that Morgan is Igraine's daughter, not Uther's, because they've got the power struggle between her and Arthur set up well anyway, and if they care enough to make that interesting, then I'll cut them some slack and go with it. (Also, for god's sake, Morgan is Eva Green. No one argues with Eva Green.)

Other variations had me cheering. For once, Kay seems to be a character, rather than a stock butt monkey, and I am ALL FOR THAT. Igraine is a regular cast member - does this mean that this Arthur's life will have a maternal influence to counterbalance the malevolence of Morgan and the sensuality and treachery of Guinevere? YES PLEASE. I'm not yet sold on Joseph Fiennes as Merlin, but I am intrigued by his world-weariness, his general bitchy treatment of Arthur, and his refusal to do magic. I can stick around and see if that gets me. And after half an hour or so, I even got used to the idea of Jamie Campbell Bower as attractive hero. (Make that boy sing, and I am all his. But let's be honest. Dude has a very strange face.)

The one thing that had me laughing ruefully and thinking, "Oh, right, Michael Hirst is involved"? Guinevere's appearance. Episode 1 is an origin story, of course, and Guinevere doesn't show up until later. So how do we get her some screen time? Why, in Arthur's wet dream, of course! Seriously. She shows up in a dream he has, on a beach, stark freaking naked, and automatically they're going at it like rabbits. Right. Cool. Rock on with that "subverting the legend's cliches" thing. Because NO ONE ELSE has ever done Guinevere as a primarily sexual being. (There is a reason my favorite portrayal of Guinevere has always been Vanessa Redgrave in the movie "Camelot.") Hopefully when Tamsin Egerton gets to speak rather than strip, the character will be more than a pair of boobs.

So: flawed? Oh hell yes. Entertaining? Oh hell yes. And peppered with details that make me very kindly disposed toward the show, in spite of the flaws. Things like the fact that Lot was Uther's main enemy, or that Morgan was sent away to a nunnery. Those are the details that were so sorely missed in "Elizabeth," which would have had us believe that William Cecil was one of the great hindrances to her reign rather than one of its great architects, or "The Tudors" asking me to believe that Cardinal Wolsey committed suicide (which, lest we forget, was a one-way ticket to HELL) when I know perfectly well that he died in the Tower of old age and bad health. When you put effort in, you get my attention.

And once I trust you not to defecate all over my legends... yeah, okay, the sex scenes are fun too.