The Tudors - Further Thoughts
May. 15th, 2007 10:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lareinenoireMy review of Episode 1x01 from quite some time ago.
So I've now watched up through Episode 1x06 and I'm ambivalent. I'm not annoyed enough with the writers to stop watching, but they made a very crucial mistake in the second episode and have been paying for it ever since. Or at least the mistakes started in the second episode and built upon themselves. And, in spite of said annoyances, there are several extremely good and compelling performances that are keeping my attention.
So, I have pinpointed the beginning of my problems with the show: When they turned the king's affair with Mary Boleyn into the functional equivalent of a one-night stand.
I can understand, in theory, why they did it. That isn't the main plotline, they wanted to get on to the juicy storyline with Henry and Anne, etc. But what Michael Hirst appears to have missed is that Anne *needed* that time. That was when her reputation was made, when she became the darling of the court, when Thomas Wyatt and all those others were pursuing her. Before Henry VIII even noticed she existed. And that is important to her character -- in fact, one might even say that was the time her character was defined, and that was why he noticed her in the first place. Just because Natalie Dormer is prettier than the real Anne (who was better described as striking than beautiful), that shouldn't preclude allowing her to have an identity separate from 'Henry VIII's second wife'.
And I'm very annoyed that they cut Anne's affair with Henry Percy. It was during that period that she caught the king's eye, and *that* was what turned her against Wolsey. The historical Anne had her own reasons to hate the Cardinal and in a very Machiavellian fashion, she used her sexuality to pursue them. If they'd kept that in, it would have added a whole new dimension to her character, rather than making her no more than her father's pawn.
I think they've done her a great disservice by not allowing her to be seen independently from Henry or her father. The real Anne was a fascinating woman -- regardless of whether or not one approves of her methods or her actions -- and there are very good reasons why she's persisted as this quasi-legendary figure. And while Dormer is doing decently enough, she's been given very little to work with, and that is such a shame.
Especially when she's contrasted with Maria Doyle Kennedy who is doing an absolutely brilliant job as Katharine of Aragon. Here is a woman with all the gravitas that Anne is lacking. Kennedy is literally able to convey entire scenes with just her eyes. If this woman is not nominated for an Emmy, it will be a crime, for she is amazing. She is one of the reasons I am still watching the series.
Another is Sam Neill. They've done a wonderful job with Wolsey. He manages to be simultaneously engaging and repellent, whether he's paying off the king's mistresses or conniving to become the next Pope. Again, it will be a great shame when Wolsey's part in the story is finished.
In fact, I'm quite happy with most of the politics. They've had to telescope things here and there, for obvious reasons, but early C16 politics really was a giant game of musical chairs.
I suppose my main problem is that the love stories -- one of the most famous in all of history, and another that's been largely untold but is so incredibly interesting -- are lacklustre. Apparently Showtime is so eager to get to the sex that they forget that sex without plot isn't a story. I understand that there are only ten episodes in the first series, and that they weren't certain of getting renewed, but still...they just moved *far* too quickly. Rome telescoped when it needed to to do so, but the only time it annoyed me was when we saw only 1.5 episodes' worth of Antony and Cleopatra, and even that was arguably understandable since HBO knew they had to wrap things up very quickly. Margaret and Charles Brandon have wonderful moments, but that's all. There's nothing holding them together. And while Anne and Henry are lovely to look at, I don't get the impression that there's anything beyond that.
They just haven't done Anne Boleyn justice. She's such a rich figure and they've reduced her to a doll. Henry at least has some initiative -- and I find his temper tantrums entertaining especially since they aren't too far from the truth. JRM chews scenery quite well and I'm happy to watch him do it.
The actor playing Thomas Boleyn (whose name I don't recall offhand) is genuinely creepy. Given his role in the story -- and what we know of the real Boleyn -- this works very well. Of particular note is the fact that it never seems his eyes are in the same place for more than a few seconds; he's *always* observing and taking mental notes for his own advancement. A good touch. Norfolk has a similar air, but obviously without the same urgency since he's already got all the status he wants.
One thing I did love -- aesthetically -- in 1x06 was the use of Thomas Wyatt's 'Vixi Puellis Nuper Idoneus' as a recurring motif. Granted, it helps that I love the poem regardless of context, but the lines were used very well. 'What hath she now deserved', indeed. That last over a particularly gorgeous shot of Natalie Dormer.
It does occur to me that Hirst in general isn't very good where famous historical love stories are concerned. There was amazing chemistry between Joseph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth, but their storyline just didn't make any *sense*. 'I love you, so I'll betray you to the Spanish?' WTF, Dudley?
Anyway, I'm still watching the series, so it's obviously not turned me off completely. And it its terribly pretty even if the costumes occasionally make me wonder if they're even trying to be authentic (Katharine is the only one who hasn't had any major faux pas, and even she wore a dress at one point that seemed about twenty years too early). But Anne! Sigh. I've been fascinated by her since I was a little girl and they've done absolutely *nothing* with her. Ah well. That's television, I suppose.
So I've now watched up through Episode 1x06 and I'm ambivalent. I'm not annoyed enough with the writers to stop watching, but they made a very crucial mistake in the second episode and have been paying for it ever since. Or at least the mistakes started in the second episode and built upon themselves. And, in spite of said annoyances, there are several extremely good and compelling performances that are keeping my attention.
So, I have pinpointed the beginning of my problems with the show: When they turned the king's affair with Mary Boleyn into the functional equivalent of a one-night stand.
I can understand, in theory, why they did it. That isn't the main plotline, they wanted to get on to the juicy storyline with Henry and Anne, etc. But what Michael Hirst appears to have missed is that Anne *needed* that time. That was when her reputation was made, when she became the darling of the court, when Thomas Wyatt and all those others were pursuing her. Before Henry VIII even noticed she existed. And that is important to her character -- in fact, one might even say that was the time her character was defined, and that was why he noticed her in the first place. Just because Natalie Dormer is prettier than the real Anne (who was better described as striking than beautiful), that shouldn't preclude allowing her to have an identity separate from 'Henry VIII's second wife'.
And I'm very annoyed that they cut Anne's affair with Henry Percy. It was during that period that she caught the king's eye, and *that* was what turned her against Wolsey. The historical Anne had her own reasons to hate the Cardinal and in a very Machiavellian fashion, she used her sexuality to pursue them. If they'd kept that in, it would have added a whole new dimension to her character, rather than making her no more than her father's pawn.
I think they've done her a great disservice by not allowing her to be seen independently from Henry or her father. The real Anne was a fascinating woman -- regardless of whether or not one approves of her methods or her actions -- and there are very good reasons why she's persisted as this quasi-legendary figure. And while Dormer is doing decently enough, she's been given very little to work with, and that is such a shame.
Especially when she's contrasted with Maria Doyle Kennedy who is doing an absolutely brilliant job as Katharine of Aragon. Here is a woman with all the gravitas that Anne is lacking. Kennedy is literally able to convey entire scenes with just her eyes. If this woman is not nominated for an Emmy, it will be a crime, for she is amazing. She is one of the reasons I am still watching the series.
Another is Sam Neill. They've done a wonderful job with Wolsey. He manages to be simultaneously engaging and repellent, whether he's paying off the king's mistresses or conniving to become the next Pope. Again, it will be a great shame when Wolsey's part in the story is finished.
In fact, I'm quite happy with most of the politics. They've had to telescope things here and there, for obvious reasons, but early C16 politics really was a giant game of musical chairs.
I suppose my main problem is that the love stories -- one of the most famous in all of history, and another that's been largely untold but is so incredibly interesting -- are lacklustre. Apparently Showtime is so eager to get to the sex that they forget that sex without plot isn't a story. I understand that there are only ten episodes in the first series, and that they weren't certain of getting renewed, but still...they just moved *far* too quickly. Rome telescoped when it needed to to do so, but the only time it annoyed me was when we saw only 1.5 episodes' worth of Antony and Cleopatra, and even that was arguably understandable since HBO knew they had to wrap things up very quickly. Margaret and Charles Brandon have wonderful moments, but that's all. There's nothing holding them together. And while Anne and Henry are lovely to look at, I don't get the impression that there's anything beyond that.
They just haven't done Anne Boleyn justice. She's such a rich figure and they've reduced her to a doll. Henry at least has some initiative -- and I find his temper tantrums entertaining especially since they aren't too far from the truth. JRM chews scenery quite well and I'm happy to watch him do it.
The actor playing Thomas Boleyn (whose name I don't recall offhand) is genuinely creepy. Given his role in the story -- and what we know of the real Boleyn -- this works very well. Of particular note is the fact that it never seems his eyes are in the same place for more than a few seconds; he's *always* observing and taking mental notes for his own advancement. A good touch. Norfolk has a similar air, but obviously without the same urgency since he's already got all the status he wants.
One thing I did love -- aesthetically -- in 1x06 was the use of Thomas Wyatt's 'Vixi Puellis Nuper Idoneus' as a recurring motif. Granted, it helps that I love the poem regardless of context, but the lines were used very well. 'What hath she now deserved', indeed. That last over a particularly gorgeous shot of Natalie Dormer.
It does occur to me that Hirst in general isn't very good where famous historical love stories are concerned. There was amazing chemistry between Joseph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth, but their storyline just didn't make any *sense*. 'I love you, so I'll betray you to the Spanish?' WTF, Dudley?
Anyway, I'm still watching the series, so it's obviously not turned me off completely. And it its terribly pretty even if the costumes occasionally make me wonder if they're even trying to be authentic (Katharine is the only one who hasn't had any major faux pas, and even she wore a dress at one point that seemed about twenty years too early). But Anne! Sigh. I've been fascinated by her since I was a little girl and they've done absolutely *nothing* with her. Ah well. That's television, I suppose.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-15 11:56 pm (UTC)Hee. I'm *still* scratching my head over that one.
I've only seen the first episode of The Tudors, on the Showtime site, but I enjoyed reading this anyway. Now I'll know what to look out for when I watch the rest. :)
Thanks for the review.........
Date: 2007-05-16 12:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 05:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 06:09 pm (UTC)And yes, sounds lovely!
no subject
Date: 2010-01-25 12:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-25 12:18 am (UTC)(There is a fair amount of general geekery on this LJ, including but not limited to my dissertation and Shakespeare fanfic, but you don't seem like you'd mind that. :) )
no subject
Date: 2010-01-25 12:25 am (UTC)