Die Tudors

The Tudors is about as close to perfection as a show of its genre can get. I understand people may argue that there are many historical inaccuracies but these become irrelevant when you realise the quality of the sets, scripts and not to forget the incredible acting.

I also think that the costume department also deserve an enormous amount of credit for designing royal attire that would have been fit for any Tudor King or Queen. As soon as you see the women walk out in their gorgeous dresses and the men in their traditional Tudor dress you are pulled into the world of Henry V111's court, a world, which thanks to this beautifully made show, I would never want to leave.

Some of Showtime's artistic license can be excused as its goal is entertainment, not historical accuracy. What is INexcusable is its choice of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers ("JRM") as Henry8. As a preliminary matter, JRM is too short. Henry8 was 6', which would correspond to 6'4" or so today, so he loomed over men around him. Shorter than most of the men in the cast (including Sam Neill and Jeremy Northam) JRM looks (and acts) like a Jack Russell amongst a pack of larger breed dogs. (Henry8's other notable feature was his red hair, and Showtime could easily have rudded JRM's hair to give more historical accuracy.) Henry8's physical superiority and characteristics were legendary, and certainly contributed to his confidence and his ability to intimidate strong-willed subjects and foreign potentates. This was a case where size mattered and Showtime simply should have cast the part of Henry8 with a larger actor.

Moreover, JRM does not understand Henry8. JRM, whose lack of classical training is painfully obvious, portrays the king as a nouveau riche goomba. Had JRM greater understanding he would have realized that meretricious swagger is not the same as confidence. JRM's Henry8 would be at home on 'Growing Up Gotti' while the aplomb and skill of the other actors (most notably Neill and Northam) show him up as common and juvenile.

None of the foregoing will matter, however, to viewers looking for mindless entertainment, and whatever its deficiencies, viewers are forced to learn some rudiments about one of history's most intriguing monarchs.

The Tudors is a fantastic show which showcases the life and times of King Henry the VIII. As the opening of the show tells the viewer, "You think you know a story but you only know how it ends. To get to the heart of a story you have to go back to the beginning." I'm sure a lot of people watching the show are watching it for entertainment and not because of its historical accuracy. I personally love Tudor England and know a lot about it. The show takes many liberties, but that's why it's entertainment and not a biographic film on the King. It's fascinating to see what is kept of what many believe to be true and what is changed. Things such as basing Henry's sister Margaret after both his sister Mary and his older sister Margaret is very interesting turn. The first four episodes have been phenomenal works of cinematic art which I hope will continue on for seasons to come.

I'm glad to see Showtime taking on the Tudor era, even if they are doing it because Henry's life is a tabloid-seller's dream come true, and our culture is tabloid-obsessed.

I love the casting of Jeremy Northam (Sir Thomas More) and Sam Neill (Cardinal Wolsey).

I read an earlier comment after I had already expressed the following thought elsewhere, and I completely agree -- Steven Waddington (Buckingham) would have been a better Henry VIII - he's bigger (he properly fills the screen, which in various shots J R-M painfully cannot, either in height or breadth); red-haired (as Henry was); and a POWERFUL, mesmerizing actor who's a better age for the part. (J R-M's eyes are riveting, but that's not enough for the part b/c at this stage of Henry's life, his fame was largely due to his physical dominance, learning & musical skill.) Showtime seems to be trying to appeal to a VERY young, VH-1 audience with the J R-M casting. Or, as they suggest, to people who don't know the story.

That's my second issue - don't suggest in the ads that you're going to tell the REAL story when you're not. Some dramatic license is expected (like flipping France for Portgual b/c they introduced Francis I early on) but there is no GOOD excuse for making a composite of Henry's sisters by telling Princess Mary Rose Tudor's story, but calling the character Princess Margaret, which was her older sister's name.

The real Margaret had a dramatic story, too -- and she's got the line to the current royal family through her great-granddaughter, Mary, Queen of Scots -- but they lost the chance to tell that by combining the sisters. Presumably they did it b/c they thought the audience was so dumb that we couldn't handle Henry's daughter and sister both being named Mary. Too bad.

Having finished the first season and rewatched it a half dozen times as I wait impatiently for Showtime to unveil the second season of "The Tudors," I have to admit that this show has intrigued me in the history surrounding Henry VIII and his unfortunate wives better than any before it. The producers say it's "80% accurate," and that's an apt description, but what impressed me so much was that within that 80% are some little-known and often overlooked moments that make for great drama. Like the fact that the little wrestling match between Henry of England and Charles of France actually did take place, or that the only time Queen Katharine lost her cool in all that she was forced to endure was over the succession, and subsequent threat to her daughter's rights to the throne. Even certain of the dialogue is ripped right from the pages of history.

True, things are pushed out of order so as to move the story along at a more rapid pace, and the worst bastardization of history comes in the form of the preposterous mingling of Henry's sisters Margaret and Mary into one individual (oddly enough, they don't even bother to push through the fact that one marriage lasted eighteen years and produced several children, which would have given them a lead-in for producing a later series built on this one about the heirs to the throne), but the reality is that this is solid film-making. The production value is exquisite, the original score is absolutely gorgeous, and then there are the performances.

It is a downright shame that Maria Doyle Kennedy and Sam Neil were given no mentions in the Emmy nominations, because while the rest of the cast is outstanding, they really deserve critical acclaim. Kennedy's Katharine of Aragon is perhaps the most authentic and sympathetic depiction ever to reach the silver screen, large or small, and the audience has responded to her with overwhelmingly positive emotions. I know that she broke my heart more than once, as much as made me want to stand up and cheer, particularly in the eighth episode. Neil is not quite as unlikable as Wolsey could be, but in the second half of the first season hits his stride and is absolutely phenomenal in the finale.

The one thing that rather disenchanted me was the amount of pointless sex and skin revealed on the part of random ladies of the court. Henry certainly had his flings but they were not as often as depicted, and to be perfectly honest, one is left wondering what he sees in these naked trollops when he has a far more beautiful and enchanting wife lingering in the background. (It also doesn't give the audience much empathy for Henry, who seems incapable of "making love." Even his eventual tryst with Anne Boleyn has more primal boredom to it than wooing.) I know it was a low ploy by Showtime, cashing in on the "sex sells" shallowness of our culture, but the story is much more profoundly lingering without it.