The Shadow of the Tower

Victorious at Bosworth Fields, Henry VII assumes the crown of England but is forced to deal with pretenders, disloyalty, and insurrection while trying to rule as a benevolent and enlightened King. James Maxwell is quite good as Henry and the cast, made up of competent, albeit not noteworthy, British actor and actresses is fine. The stagy look of the film makes up for the obvious limited budget and the script has that pseudo-Shakespearian weightiness than makes for a good historical outing. The episodic series was made as a 'prequel' to the BBC's very popular 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' and 'Elizabeth R', (both 1971) and the three productions seen in historical order would make for an entertaining and educational excursion through the sometimes benign, sometimes bloody, three generation Tudor dynasty.

'The Shadow of the Tower' came to my attention as a recommendation, having been so taken with both 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' and especially 'Elizabeth R' with Keith Michell and Glenda Jackson giving unforgettable portrayals as Henry and Elizabeth.

Finally seeing 'The Shadow of the Tower' it was intriguing certainly, but it was also somewhat of a let-down. It is definitely worth seeing for anybody who wants to learn more about King Henry VII, most famous for being Henry VIII's father and defeating Richard III at the battle of Bosworth (signalling the end of the "Wars of the Roses") and until seeing that was pretty much all that was personally known about him. To see 'The Shadow of the Tower' giving him much complexity and making him a richly and vividly drawn character was really wonderful to see, and is one of the series' biggest selling points.

As is the nuanced, understated, while still giving the character plenty of juice, and altogether marvellous performance of James Maxwell, one almost on par with Michell's Henry VIII and Jackson's Elizabeth I and definitely the best thing about 'The Shadow of the Tower. The acting other than Maxwell very much varies, the performances of Perkin Warbeck and Earl of Warwick (the best developed supporting characters too) come off best and are strong portrayals. Too much of the rest of the acting is either too overwroughtly hammy or too staidly stagy. Don't know what the writers and casting directors were thinking with that out-of-place and offensively stereotypical Jewish Spanish Ambassador character.

Production values, writing and storytelling also varies. The costumes are accurate, evocative and attractive and the photography is skillful, unfussy and attractively done, but too much of the production values have a shoe-string budget and confined look that rob the locations and period detail of their grandeur and expansiveness, the sets look like they were worth less than one pound or something. The music is beautifully composed and never intrudes, used at minimum in fact.

Some of the writing is very good, credit is due to making Henry, Warbeck and Warwick well-drawn characters and it is very literate and thought-provoking with no obvious factual distortions, so it will be no doubt fascinating for historical buffs. In other places though, a danger this said for script-writing so heavy in detail, it is a bit too rambling and wordy, with some scenes having too much talk that undermines the momentum. Some of it has lapses in continuity and clarity of where and when everything took place, as well as having some convoluted and clunky exposition.

In 'The Shadow of the Tower' there is a good deal of compelling storytelling and one is fascinated by a monarch that is much more interesting and complex than the two things that he's most well-known for. Some of the storytelling later on after starting grippingly does suffer from lack of narrative link which harms the continuity and causes confusion and some too staid pacing (yes 'The Shadow of the Tower' was a series where slow pacing was necessary, but it does feel dull and has too much of a drifting feel when there is a lack of dramatic conflict and a lot of talk).

On the whole, worth watching but disappointing. Nothing is done disastrously, but at the end of the day the development of Henry VII and James Maxwell are the only truly outstanding things, everything else is variable. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Impossible to imagine being made now, The Shadow of the Tower is a deep and insightful look at the Tudor era's least remembered ruler and its founder: Henry VII. The writing is always engaging even in the weaker episodes and there is a great eye for historical detail. Some episodes rise even higher than the rest, particulary those written by Hugh Whitemore. I see many reviewers here accuse the show of bad acting. I cannot understand that. Some minor roles are of course, but then I can't imagine what these people would make of more recent shows like the Tudors. I am sure nobody thinks that of James Maxwell who is obviously the stand out in portraying a compassionate, fair ruler who is occasionally conflicted but is also highly intelligent. Where it works in history it perhaps fails in drama. It is really a dramatised documentary though probably more accurate than most. I think a lot of people would find it dull. The history is what it is interested in, however, and there is not a wasted word as far as I am concerned. Henry's reign may not on the surface be especially dramatic compared to others but it was actually poised on a very interesting turning point in the shift from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age.

I would recommend to anyone interested in history and the episode "The Serpent and the Comforter" works great as a standalone.

In the early 1970's 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' and 'Elizabeth R' enthralled the TV viewers of the UK with superb acting, gorgeous costumes, incisive scripts and high - for the time - production values. Even more exciting they were in colour, which was a real novelty at the time.

Looking for a follow-up project the BBC decided to go back in time to the founding of the Tudor line by Henry VII. The unfortunate truth is that Henry senior was far less colourful than his son or granddaughter. He was a shrewd ruler who used bureaucracy, the law and financial policy to maintain his power - and he was devotedly married to his wife Elizabeth and heart-broken when she died. In other words a bit of a cold fish with little fire and romance to turn into 12 hours of TV drama.

This story could have been told in half the time or less, but the BBC obviously thought they were on the crest of a wave and got too greedy. The result was a long-winded trudge through 24 years of history. Henry's reign was not uneventful, nor unsuccessful, but there were no wives or mistresses, no Spanish Armada and no rousing speeches.

The scripts are turgid and wordy and some of the acting positively amateurish. The younger women are also too much like 1960's 'dolly birds' as we called them then. If you enjoyed the other Tudor series of the time, don't think this is of the same quality. One to avoid.

Everything most modern historical shows (especially about the 15th-16th century English monarchs-- you know what they are) are not. Writing, historical accuracy, and top-quality acting are prized over sensationalism and sex, and the show is all the more intriguing for it. It hardly matters that the budget is low or that the camerawork isn't super "cinematic"-- the political intrigue and Henry VII's tightrope walk between being a good king, businessman, and family man are just wonderful to watch.