Jump to content

The Tudors


Chuck50
This topic is 5495 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

I probably could enjoy it more if it weren't so grossly inaccurate and Mr. Meyers is too much of a twink to convincingly play the young Henry who, even, while young was way over 6 ft tall and a really, big, strong, athletic guy. Meyers looks like the wind would blow him over.

 

mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished watching the first season on DVD, and enjoyed it tremendously, even though there are lots of historical inaccuracies. For example, by the time Henry VIII was tired of Catherine of Aragon and dallying with Ann Boleyn, he was much older and stouter than depicted in this series, where the svelt Jonathan Rhys Meyers sports the slim & muscly look. I think he is a terrific actor - at least, terrific at exuding intense sexuality. He is probably physically OK to play Henry in his early 20s, but not much later, and even then the look is off, because portraits depict Henry is taller, broad of build, and reddish-blond haired.... But most of the other main roles seem to be cast by people who plausibly fit the images from historical paintings, especially Northam as Thomas Moore and that young rock musician who is cast as Thomas Tallis. (Although I read somewhere that in fact Tallis did not become resident in Henry's court as a musician until rather later in the story than depicted in the TV series, and there is no known evidence that he ever engaged in an affair with a nobleman at the court.)

 

The cast if full of hot looking young men, and there is plenty of skin for some of them. The guy who plays the young Duke of Suffolk is totally hot!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the actor who plays Charles Brandon is the hottest. He has an arm-wrestling scene with Henry that is pretty homo-erotic.

 

But historically inaccurate? I think about the only thing the series gets right is the names.

 

Henry's sister never marries the King of Portugal, she marries the King of France and she doesn't murder him. That scene was so ridiculous I laughed out loud.

 

I'm a huge fan of Tudor history and it is probably the most fascinating period in British history. Why do they need to make this stuff up when the real story is so interesting in the first place?

 

Also, Anne Boleyn was quite common-looking in real life and was thought to be quite stupid by many. Not the way she is depicted in the series.

 

Meyers is not only too young for the part but he is too young-looking. He's around 30 but looks 20. And way too twinky.

 

But I suppose it is great fun. Northam is great, however.

 

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a movie coming out this year "The Other Boleyn Girl" with Eric Bana as Henry, Natalie Portman as Anne and Scarlett Johansson as her sister Mary!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the first-season DVD, the last disc includes as a bonus a short film about Ann Boleyn and her sister Mary. Actually, in some ways it seems much more accurate than The Tudors in depicting the people and their relationships. The guy who plays Henry is less of a twink than Rhys Meyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

Who cares if it is historically acurate. It's entertainment for God's sake, not a high school history lesson.

 

JRM makes a great Henry 8th - Who would you prefer, Nathan Lane?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not seen this and it would be nice if it were more accurate. However, this is not the first time the Tudors have been inaccurately represented purely for the sake of putting on a good piece of entertainment.

 

For example, Schiller in his play Maria Stuart, has Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart meet for a cat-fight when in actuality they never met in real life. This then got incorporated into Donizetti’s opera Maria Stuarda as the infamous “Vil bastarda” scene… the concept was duplicated in several movies as well. Likewise, in Donizetti’s opera Roberto Devereux we find a fictionalized account of the ubiquitous Elizabeth and Essex story that again has been featured in several films. Finally, and most appropriate to this thread, there is Donizetti’s opera Anna Bolena which features a Henry VIII that is not exactly historically correct as well… but it is good theatre, allows for some spectacular singing, and that is the bottom line.

 

So lighten up, look the other way, and enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I followed the series when it first premiered on Showtime and look forward to season two. The historical inaccuracies are endemic to all dramatizations of historical events. Just saw Marlowe's Edward II at the Washington Shakespear Theater and are more than a few inaccuracies in that production. It's not easy to compress events that took place over a decade or two into a stage performance of a few hours, motion picture, or a series of a few weeks.

 

But in reference to the Tudors, who would you rather see half naked cavorting as Henry? A hot looking Jonathan Rhys Meyers or a historically accurate looking actor as the fat, bloated, Henry VIII of real depiction? I'll take the inaccurate JRM and his fine body. :9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of the inaccuracy in the Tudors serves no pupose. For instance it has Henry's sister Margaret marrying the King of Portugal, killing him, and marrying Charles Brandon, with no mention of the other sister Mary. In actual fact, neither married the King of Portugal. Margaret married James IV of Scotland and was the ancestres of Mary Queen of Scots, James VI of England and all subsequent English monarchs and probably all of the European royalty. Mary however, married the King of France and later Charles Brandon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: The TudorsI

 

I think the point about historical accuracy here is being missed. Shakespeare, Schiller, Donizetti, etc weren't not trying to write accurate non-fiction depiction of Tudor England. They were writing fiction. They were also written at time long before historical research was at the level it is at today -- especially in the more objective category.

 

"The Tudors" on Showtime, however, purports to be "non-fiction." But it is more fictional than Harry Potter.

 

Don't get me wrong. I think the series is great fun but I'd prefer they not present it as if it telling the real story and they should label it "fiction."

 

It's fun entertainment but I also think it sad that with all the resources of today, they chose to go this route rather than tell an accurate story that is, in reality, far more interesting than the silly fiction they present.

 

If all they wanted to do was present "hot" actors cavorting around they could have just done that and not disguise it as one of the most famous and interesting stories of all time.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Who cares if it is historically acurate. It's entertainment

>for God's sake, not a high school history lesson.

>

In the case of the Tudors, I wouldn't think it would be too hard to be both, but from what I've seen, they hardly tried at all...

 

As for casting, when Henry VIII came to the throne, he was called the 'handsomest prince in Europe'. I think JRM would win the 'prettiest prince in Europe' award, but he doesn't have the sheer physical presence that Henry was said to have had. Henry was very attractive, but in a masculine/athletic sense. The Hans Holbein Henry with the huge waistline and puffy face didn't come into being until he was well into his thirties and had buried 3 wives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: The TudorsI

 

RE: "The Tudors" on Showtime

 

Well, not having seen the series I was not aware that is was on "Showtime"... and I think that explains the reason for not only the liberties taken with history, but the presence of “hot actors” as well. . For example, this evening "Showtime" is presenting Jackass Number Two a movie which has the following description:

 

Utterly offensive, sick, and tasteless, but in a good way, this sequel to the hit motion picture "Jackass" (and television series of the same name) ups the ante for star Johnny Knoxville and his merry band of death-defying pranksters, who subject themselves to stunts involving horse manure, leeches, and projectile vomiting.

 

Well, if this is the type of programming representative of "Showtime" no wonder The Tudors is about "hot actors cavorting around"... so no wonder no accurate "historical research" was even attempted.

 

Still, too bad it could not have been “tasteless” and historically accurate at the same time, which would have been a reasonable compromise.

 

At any rate, I think Schiller, Donizetti, and possibly even Shakespeare might have understood!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the inaccurate JRM is hot to watch, but he could have been used to play one of the other roles, after all. And it would have been possible to find a hot, red-headed bear type to play Henry. Different strokes for different folks....

 

By the way, the first season of the Tudors ends with Henry still married to Catherine of Aragon and playing footsy with Ann Boleyn, so he hasn't buried any wives yet in the first season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...