Sympathetic William Hamleigh?


I haven't seen the mini-series, I've only read the book, but I'm curious. Scrolling through TV Tropes I saw that William Hamleigh gets the "Draco in leather pants" treatment from some people (like they make excuses for his evil deeds or whatever, the way a lot of girls feel about Draco Malfoy), and I was like

WHAT?

Because in the book he's arrogant, hot-tempered, he kills people with no remorse (except a fear of hell that leaves as soon as he's had Confession), he rapes practically every woman he runs into (and has his knights rape many of them), he's turned on by their fear and pain, and he blames them if he can't get it up. He has literally no redeeming qualities. I spent the entire book waiting for him to die a horrible, painful death, and then when he did die I still wasn't satisfied because hanging was not horrible or painful enough.

I can't imagine that anyone is giving him the leather pants treatment because of the book, because if they are they really need to look at their priorities and possibly see a psychiatrist.

So I'm assuming that this treatment is because a) he's played by David Oakes, who is reasonably good-looking (a trait that helps most leather-pants characters get that treatment) and/or b) the mini-series portrayed him more sympathetically/gave him some redeeming characteristic/gave him some tragic back-story.

Can someone clue me in? Is he portrayed at all sympathetically in the mini-series, or is it purely that David Oakes is attractive and therefore some fans are willing to overlook the character's attrocities?

reply

There are some triads of the character,which are not in the book- they- at last for me- make William 's character more ...understandable ( not excusable) ,if I can put it that way. On the show he had a sexual relationship with his mother- she loved him, but with the obsessive love. He killed his mother at the end. .

___
Doctor Who: Human beings. You always manage to find the boring alternative, don't you?

reply

Whew, creepy. But thank you. Because at first I didn't even know there had been an adaptation made, so I was horrified at the thought that anyone could find Book-William remotely sympathetic. Good to know that the people who give him the leather-pants treatment do so because of a more sympathetic TV portrayal.

reply

SPOILERS of the series and book....






In addition to what Dani 101 said, William is portrayed a little differently in the series than the book. It seems like they tried to make him seem evil - they showed him raping Aliena and they showed the bruises on his wife's face later on, suggesting that he beat her, he murdered Tom Builder and his mother - but they left out a lot. It showed no scenes of him with prostitutes to display how he is only turned on by a woman's fear. It also didn't show the scene with either of the millers, the one that is murdered and the one whose wife is about to be raped before Richard and the outlaws burst in. It actually didn't show any outlaws, or how terribly William was ruling. I believe there is only one mention of that when Richard (who is also painted in a much more positive light as a loyal knight and loving brother) goes to King Stephen and asks for his title by saying he would rule the earldom better than William.

William is shown as being mostly a pawn of his parents and Waleran. Similar to the book, but just not as sadistic. It doesn't help that on the screen you can't read thoughts as well as you do in a book. It doesn't do a sufficient job of showing his obsession with Aliena, for example.

reply

Okay, that makes more sense then. I mean, I still doubt I'd find him sympathetic, at least after reading the book, but at least I can understand why people who are only familiar with this version would give him the leather-pants treatment. Less horrified by it now.

reply

I just watched the series and he appeared to me to be a pus filled maggot, deserving of a slow death by torture.

reply

See, that's exactly how I felt about him in the book. Shame he was only hanged. Not nearly satisfying enough.

reply

i agree only hung and he lived way to long.

reply

[deleted]

Even if his character on screen isn't expressex to the full extent of evil that his book counterpart is, there is noting sympathetic or understanding about him.

reply

He's a charming rogue. There's a scene where he's just finished raping that child and he's just lounging on the bed looking suave and very pleased with himself. I was like, oh William, I can't stay mad at you.

reply

No, he's not.

reply

I have not seen the entire mini-series and have just watched until the 5th episode. All I can say is the man deserves to be quartered slowly, one piece at a time, then wait a few days, then begin again. Until there is nothing left.
There is no redeeming qualities about him. That he was sexually abused by dear old mom does not excuse his evilness, especially when he seems to enjoy doing it with mom.
I'll even volunteer to do the deed, he deserves no mercy.





Quit ya moanin

reply

I am rewatching right now! He's disgusting and vile on the show as I remember him to be when I watched years ago. The show doesn't have a scene of him enjoying a woman's fear like the poster above says, but he seems to enjoy talking/imagining about inflicting pain on others.

He's also being raped by his mother, which he is clearly repulsed by, who seems to have molded him into the what he became (she is also a deplorable sadist and nurtures these thoughts in him). So, the show explains why he is the monster that he is, but they do not make him likable or justify his actions.

I think Alfred is the one who is a bit sympathetic... so far (I'm only on the third episode). But, I remember hating him as well.

reply