The Tudors

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.

I think "The Tudors" is the best television I've watched in a long time. Interesting that it was a collaboration between Irish and Canadian TV, maybe that's why the BBC didn't give it more of a profile? I disagree with the approach taken by the other reviewers - it is a DRAMA and never purported to be an accurate historical documentary, so my advice is to understand that first and enjoy it as it was meant to be enjoyed. The acting is superlative from everyone with the exception perhaps of Joely Richardson whom I've never "got" anyway - too colourless and divorced from the part. Tamsin Merchant as Catherine Howard gave a consistently outstanding performance, and all credit to such a young actress. Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry VIII was absolutely excellent throughout, he thoroughly owned the character and delivered with incredible passion and conviction. (And yes, he was extremely pleasing to the eye unlike H8 - so what?). I would also like to praise the production itself, the incredible and spellbinding direction, the lavish sets and opulent costumes and not least of all the music which I am now intent on buying.

Well, it's gorgeous, well-acted but far too much tampering with the facts of history. Henry had TWO sisters, not one, and it was his sister, Mary, who was married off to a king in his dotage - and it was to the king of France, not Portugal. Margaret was married to the Scottish King, from whence comes the Stuart claim to the English throne. Don't watch this for your history exam! Just enjoy the costumes, set, fiery acting and music. The portrait of Henry, though, is wonderful. Lest we forget; he was quite handsome and charismatic in his younger days. As he continued getting his way both in politics and the bedroom, he grew more and more self-absorbed and ruthless. One good historical item is pointing out that, whatever was going on in separating from the Roman church, most of the English reformers had little use for Luther and wished to distance themselves from the continental reformation. Odd that today the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran church work hand-in-hand in aid efforts and acknowledge more readily our common bonds. Just FYI, the word "protestant" actually means one who protests the abuse of the Sacrements, which was rampant in those days.

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.

All these reviewers , boasting of their historical knowledge ....pleeeeez Get over yourselves !!! This is a Hollywood production , not a classroom lesson. The costumes , the scenery , the acting ... this is what film making is about . If you don't like it , go read an encyclopedia.