The Tudors - 1x01 review
Apr. 9th, 2007 02:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lareinenoire(Not an actual post; something I wrote up last week and only now found the Internet with which to post it. As for the icon, it just felt right.)
I actually wrote this review last Tuesday, after watching the episode for the first time. I did have to go back and rewatch a few scenes to double-check certain things, and I plan to watch the entire episode again before I go into the second one, but that won't be for some time yet.
Overall, I would have to appropriate![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
atropos333's term and call myself cautiously optimistic. Only one thing in this first episode *truly* annoyed me, but there were a few other niggling issues, some of which I am willing to acknowledge might be due to the fact that I've not read up on Henry VIII recently, having been more occupied with his father and various others--other than Carolly Erickson's biography of Anne Boleyn that I found by accident at Half-Price Books last week and have just started--and therefore don't remember the chronology as well as I might like.
First and foremost, I really like Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry VIII. Once I got past the dark hair---
(For goodness' sake, Showtime, why on earth can't you dye his hair? Everybody knows Henry VIII had red hair. Nobody has ever argued this point. Don't tell me there wasn't room in the budget. Hair dye is cheap.)
---it occurred to me that he actually looks the part. He's got the right face, and if he's a bit slight in build, we do know that Henry wasn't always fat. And he strikes all the right chords with the performance. He's capricious, easily distracted, but still very astute and, above all, he knows his place. Everybody else is below him and, like Max Pirkis in Season 1 of Rome, you *know* he knows it. The same holds true for the many many women. The little scene with Elizabeth Blount was particularly well-done, I thought; he asks her if she consents, but she's hardly in a position to say no, is she?
Sam Neill as Wolsey is also very good. He really gives off that aura of a man constantly weighing the situation and planning accordingly. And again, in a scene with Lady Blount, it comes through very well. He barely even looks at her as he plans out her life.
As Thomas More, Jeremy Northam hasn't been given terribly much to do so far, but he does it well. The self-flagellating bit at the end was somewhat odd, but while I'm familiar with More's History of King Richard III, I'm really only versed in the parts of his life that directly concern that work (i.e. Bishop Morton), so I can't comment on the accuracy there.
What I can comment on with regard to accuracy is the chronology. The episode doesn't give us a date, but based on various references, I would place it in late 1519 or early 1520 (the 'summit' constantly referenced being the Field of the Cloth of Gold in the summer of 1520).
That being the case, I found it very odd and somewhat jarring that everybody refers to Charles Brandon as 'Mister'. He was, by this point, the Duke of Suffolk (admittedly elevated by the king) *and* married to Henry's sister Mary Tudor (widowed after a short marriage to King Louis XII of France), neither of which is ever mentioned. I'm willing to allow that they might bring Mary in later, since from what I've read, she more or less retired from court after her second marriage, but there was a perfect place to mention the title in a scene where Buckingham complains about the king's lowborn companions and they did not do so. It just seems like a very simple thing to put in (like the hair) that for some reason was forgotten. Or maybe they did it on purpose to keep things simple. I don't know.
Also, the Boleyns were viewed as upstarts by much of the established nobility. I can only explain Buckingham's surprisingly polite treatment of Thomas Boleyn as a glaring attempt to win over a man close to the King. Though I loved the random mention of Richard III. I'm silly that way. Plus, it really provides a background for Henry's dynastic anxieties; the fact that the Wars of the Roses were still close enough to be a threatening shadow.
I did like the random appearance by Thomas Tallis. It made me grin.
And I am very curious to see how they develop Katherine of Aragon. I liked seeing her play the (albeit informal) ambassador on behalf of Charles V, which she certainly did, and which may well have played a role in Henry's decision to divorce her as a final break from Spain and the Hapsburgs. Her suspicion of Wolsey was also well-established and ultimately justified, poor thing.
I also like the contrast between Mary and Anne Boleyn. Though again, Natalie Dormer looks the part of Anne Boleyn beautifully except for one thing: her eyes. Most of the sources I've read agree that Anne Boleyn had very dark eyes. Admittedly, it could be a case like Daniel Radcliffe's in the Harry Potter films, where coloured contacts are for some reason not an option. Still, the so-close-but-not-quite-there bugs me. I am glad they made it clear that both Anne and Mary were still in France at this point.
In all, as I said, I'm cautiously optimistic. The first episode definitely established Henry's character, which I can only imagine was intentional since he's the focal point of the series and everybody else orbits around him, as it were. All the major players seem to have been at least introduced, and I'm certainly looking forward to the next episode.
I actually wrote this review last Tuesday, after watching the episode for the first time. I did have to go back and rewatch a few scenes to double-check certain things, and I plan to watch the entire episode again before I go into the second one, but that won't be for some time yet.
Overall, I would have to appropriate
atropos333's term and call myself cautiously optimistic. Only one thing in this first episode *truly* annoyed me, but there were a few other niggling issues, some of which I am willing to acknowledge might be due to the fact that I've not read up on Henry VIII recently, having been more occupied with his father and various others--other than Carolly Erickson's biography of Anne Boleyn that I found by accident at Half-Price Books last week and have just started--and therefore don't remember the chronology as well as I might like.First and foremost, I really like Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry VIII. Once I got past the dark hair---
(For goodness' sake, Showtime, why on earth can't you dye his hair? Everybody knows Henry VIII had red hair. Nobody has ever argued this point. Don't tell me there wasn't room in the budget. Hair dye is cheap.)
---it occurred to me that he actually looks the part. He's got the right face, and if he's a bit slight in build, we do know that Henry wasn't always fat. And he strikes all the right chords with the performance. He's capricious, easily distracted, but still very astute and, above all, he knows his place. Everybody else is below him and, like Max Pirkis in Season 1 of Rome, you *know* he knows it. The same holds true for the many many women. The little scene with Elizabeth Blount was particularly well-done, I thought; he asks her if she consents, but she's hardly in a position to say no, is she?
Sam Neill as Wolsey is also very good. He really gives off that aura of a man constantly weighing the situation and planning accordingly. And again, in a scene with Lady Blount, it comes through very well. He barely even looks at her as he plans out her life.
As Thomas More, Jeremy Northam hasn't been given terribly much to do so far, but he does it well. The self-flagellating bit at the end was somewhat odd, but while I'm familiar with More's History of King Richard III, I'm really only versed in the parts of his life that directly concern that work (i.e. Bishop Morton), so I can't comment on the accuracy there.
What I can comment on with regard to accuracy is the chronology. The episode doesn't give us a date, but based on various references, I would place it in late 1519 or early 1520 (the 'summit' constantly referenced being the Field of the Cloth of Gold in the summer of 1520).
That being the case, I found it very odd and somewhat jarring that everybody refers to Charles Brandon as 'Mister'. He was, by this point, the Duke of Suffolk (admittedly elevated by the king) *and* married to Henry's sister Mary Tudor (widowed after a short marriage to King Louis XII of France), neither of which is ever mentioned. I'm willing to allow that they might bring Mary in later, since from what I've read, she more or less retired from court after her second marriage, but there was a perfect place to mention the title in a scene where Buckingham complains about the king's lowborn companions and they did not do so. It just seems like a very simple thing to put in (like the hair) that for some reason was forgotten. Or maybe they did it on purpose to keep things simple. I don't know.
Also, the Boleyns were viewed as upstarts by much of the established nobility. I can only explain Buckingham's surprisingly polite treatment of Thomas Boleyn as a glaring attempt to win over a man close to the King. Though I loved the random mention of Richard III. I'm silly that way. Plus, it really provides a background for Henry's dynastic anxieties; the fact that the Wars of the Roses were still close enough to be a threatening shadow.
I did like the random appearance by Thomas Tallis. It made me grin.
And I am very curious to see how they develop Katherine of Aragon. I liked seeing her play the (albeit informal) ambassador on behalf of Charles V, which she certainly did, and which may well have played a role in Henry's decision to divorce her as a final break from Spain and the Hapsburgs. Her suspicion of Wolsey was also well-established and ultimately justified, poor thing.
I also like the contrast between Mary and Anne Boleyn. Though again, Natalie Dormer looks the part of Anne Boleyn beautifully except for one thing: her eyes. Most of the sources I've read agree that Anne Boleyn had very dark eyes. Admittedly, it could be a case like Daniel Radcliffe's in the Harry Potter films, where coloured contacts are for some reason not an option. Still, the so-close-but-not-quite-there bugs me. I am glad they made it clear that both Anne and Mary were still in France at this point.
In all, as I said, I'm cautiously optimistic. The first episode definitely established Henry's character, which I can only imagine was intentional since he's the focal point of the series and everybody else orbits around him, as it were. All the major players seem to have been at least introduced, and I'm certainly looking forward to the next episode.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 06:24 pm (UTC)I haven't seen it, having no Showtime. Maybe I'll find it later.
Which continent are you on, anyway? I need to discuss
no subject
Date: 2007-04-10 01:08 pm (UTC)And re: Suffolk, sigh. I was hoping that wasn't the Annoying Thing I was suspecting.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 06:46 pm (UTC)For my part, if it is called The Tudors and does not feature Hvii, I'm disappointed. He's the reason I'd watch, and I'd want to see a good depiction of HVII*. Still waiting, sadly.
*I might be an entrenched Yorkist, I respect his governance.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-10 01:10 pm (UTC)This is Showtime, but very much in the vein of Rome. And I was also rather surprised to see it called 'The Tudors' and not feature anyone other than HVIII. Though they might be counting his sisters?
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 08:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-10 02:36 am (UTC)(returns to researching 'alternate viewing methods: The Tudors')
no subject
Date: 2007-04-10 01:11 pm (UTC)Thanks for the review.........
Date: 2007-04-10 02:15 am (UTC)