Posts
The Tudors (2007)
Part accurate, part artistic licensing does not add up to a "Rome" killer.
This Showtime series focuses on the young life of King Henry the VIII of England and seems to be a direct response to HBO's "Rome". Historically speaking, Henry becomes King at the tender age of 17 years old and marries his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon (daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, who is 6 years his senior). Thomas Wolsey becomes Lord Chancellor and Cardinal in 1515 and this seems to be about when then the series begins. Henry is approximately 24 years old, at this point, and won't meet Anne Boleyn for another decade.
While more than a few historical inaccuracies occur as well as a bit of chronological confusion (Machiavelli's the Prince is written in 1513, but does not get publish until 1531, for example) much of the sets, costumes, mannerisms and ideas of the day are for the most part in the spirit of the era. The clothing does seem to be more accessible to sex, in light of history, but I assume this is due to some of that artistic licensing.
The sex, to me, seems to be the one aspect that tries to hard to keep pace with Rome's carnal delicacies and seems a bit forced and out of place. The way sex is portrayed seems a bit revolutionary and at least 100 years too early (Libertine era). What is accurate is the outdated and detrimental medical diagnosis of the day as well as Henry's desire for an heir (and subsequent separation from the Catholic Church, start of the English Reformation and influence of the New World).
Jonathan Rhys Meyers is the focal point of the series, playing the Renaissance man that was Henry the VIII. The king is multidimensional and complicated. Meyers does seem a bit underwhelming for a character that seems bigger than life. Sam Neal (Cardinal Wolsey) is ,also, the only other character to truly stand out from the cast (Rome had a thoroughly more distinguished cast). While Meyers and Neal do a good job, there is a certain lack of chemistry (professionally cool) between the all main characters (another problem Rome lacked).
The cities of his kingdom reminded me of the computer graphic backgrounds prevalent in episodes 1-3 of the Star Wars Trilogy; fake looking and lifeless. Rome the series managed to reproduce the intricacies and pulse of that era, down to the battlefield, markets and even the arena. The Tudors remains a bit cold and theatrical, relying mostly on interior sets. The series is very devoid on action and relies mostly on dialog and a slow moving plot (see I, Claudius as an example to the contrary). It lacks the epic quality of Rome along with fewer historically irreplaceable characters (no Julius Caesar, no Mark Anthony, no Cleopatra,etc). Perhaps the the Tudors translates too closely the English demeanor or maybe what it really lacks is the vision of a John Milius ?
Because of the lack of another good historically based drama (don't even mention BBC's Robin Hood series), I will continue to watch this series. It is definitely not as engaging or entertaining as HBO's Rome, but is currently the only game in town. Other notable historical oddities, left out of the show would include :
1)Lark's tongue as a English culinary delicacy.
2)Anne Boleyn tended to vomit in between courses and may have had six fingers on her left hand and three nipples.
3)A cure for baldness involved rubbing dog or horse urine into the scalp.
4)The same year as his coronation, Henry appoints a Groom of the Stool, whose sole purpose is to clean the royal sphincter.
Maybe if those details were present, this would make for a more interesting and authentic experience. As it stands, the show has yet to impress or find it's groove. Here's to your health, M'Lord.
While more than a few historical inaccuracies occur as well as a bit of chronological confusion (Machiavelli's the Prince is written in 1513, but does not get publish until 1531, for example) much of the sets, costumes, mannerisms and ideas of the day are for the most part in the spirit of the era. The clothing does seem to be more accessible to sex, in light of history, but I assume this is due to some of that artistic licensing.
The sex, to me, seems to be the one aspect that tries to hard to keep pace with Rome's carnal delicacies and seems a bit forced and out of place. The way sex is portrayed seems a bit revolutionary and at least 100 years too early (Libertine era). What is accurate is the outdated and detrimental medical diagnosis of the day as well as Henry's desire for an heir (and subsequent separation from the Catholic Church, start of the English Reformation and influence of the New World).
Jonathan Rhys Meyers is the focal point of the series, playing the Renaissance man that was Henry the VIII. The king is multidimensional and complicated. Meyers does seem a bit underwhelming for a character that seems bigger than life. Sam Neal (Cardinal Wolsey) is ,also, the only other character to truly stand out from the cast (Rome had a thoroughly more distinguished cast). While Meyers and Neal do a good job, there is a certain lack of chemistry (professionally cool) between the all main characters (another problem Rome lacked).
The cities of his kingdom reminded me of the computer graphic backgrounds prevalent in episodes 1-3 of the Star Wars Trilogy; fake looking and lifeless. Rome the series managed to reproduce the intricacies and pulse of that era, down to the battlefield, markets and even the arena. The Tudors remains a bit cold and theatrical, relying mostly on interior sets. The series is very devoid on action and relies mostly on dialog and a slow moving plot (see I, Claudius as an example to the contrary). It lacks the epic quality of Rome along with fewer historically irreplaceable characters (no Julius Caesar, no Mark Anthony, no Cleopatra,etc). Perhaps the the Tudors translates too closely the English demeanor or maybe what it really lacks is the vision of a John Milius ?
Because of the lack of another good historically based drama (don't even mention BBC's Robin Hood series), I will continue to watch this series. It is definitely not as engaging or entertaining as HBO's Rome, but is currently the only game in town. Other notable historical oddities, left out of the show would include :
1)Lark's tongue as a English culinary delicacy.
2)Anne Boleyn tended to vomit in between courses and may have had six fingers on her left hand and three nipples.
3)A cure for baldness involved rubbing dog or horse urine into the scalp.
4)The same year as his coronation, Henry appoints a Groom of the Stool, whose sole purpose is to clean the royal sphincter.
Maybe if those details were present, this would make for a more interesting and authentic experience. As it stands, the show has yet to impress or find it's groove. Here's to your health, M'Lord.
No comments:
Post a Comment