Henry VIII

This BBC two-parter tells the story of Henry VIII and casts Ray Winstone in the titular role. Winstone, a much-mocked actor, seems to have a legion of detractors but I found him perfect in this part, playing a surprisingly emotional and unstable monarch.

Given Henry's status as England's most famous king, the story is very familiar but that doesn't stop HENRY VIII from being a highly entertaining interpretation of the story. Of course, the pacing is super-fast seeing as six wives and all manner of political turmoil is compressed into just three hours, but it still has time to get all the important stuff in there.

The budget seems higher than the Hollywood version of THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL (maybe because money wasn't blown on needless 'star' names) with close attention to detail both in set and costume. The cast is simply excellent - not just in the supporting male characters (Mark Strong and Danny Webb are great bad guys, Charles Dance and Sean Bean are brief and tragic figures, David Suchet makes Wolsey his own) but particularly in the actresses playing Henry's wives.

Of course, Helena Bonham Carter bags the headlining role of Anne Boleyn, and very good she is too. But Emilia Fox (as Jane Seymour) and an impossibly young Emily Blunt (as Catherine Howard) also deserve plaudits for their acting skills. Is this better than the Keith Michell version? No, but I'd say it was equally as good and a fittingly violent interpretation for our times.

Perhaps, like other dramas suggested by historical characters, this version of the story of 'Henry VIII' should be viewed with a high degree of suspicion since most of the events depicted have very little basis in what we know of the complex Tudor monarch.

Putting this reservation aside, there are plenty of opportunities to enjoy this four-hour drama for what it is, largely an entertainment playing on our prejudices and emotions throughout its depiction and treatment of the six wives. Part One wastes far too much time on the courtship between Henry and Anne Boleyn, and then manages to whizz through the circumstances of her downfall in a matter of minutes. This was a huge mistake in my opinion and makes that part of the story extremely confusing.

Part Two obviously spends time on Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard, but again with a large amount of artistic licence - was Jane really a political meddler and did her husband's violence towards her cause her to go into premature birth? was Catherine really a manipulated slut with no mind of her own? The second section of "Henry VIII" is more gory than Part One, in particular concerning the execution scenes, and I think this aspect probably worked.

In the cast, kudos has to go to Ray Winstone in the lead despite the distraction of his East End accent, particularly for his work in the later part of the story. Of the wives, Assumpta Serna is an excellent Katharine of Aragon, giving the role some dignity; Helena Bonham-Carter is ok as Anne Boleyn but irritates at times - she does better in the scenes where she appears vulnerable than when she is feisty, talking-back Anne; Emilia Fox is good as Jane Seymour; Pia Girard has nothing to do as Anne of Cleves (I don't think she even speaks); Emily Blunt is miscast as Catherine Howard; and Clare Holman is effective as Catherine Parr. Others making an impact include David Suchet as Wolsey, Michael Maloney as Cranmer, Danny Webb as Thomas Cromwell, Dominic Mafham as Anne Boleyn's brother; Joseph Morgan as Thomas Culpepper; and Sean Bean as Robert Ashe.

Perhaps a bit of a misfire but a fascinating one.

Bodice-Ripper Mentality

Henry as played by Ray Winstone is a brawling, bawling, beastly Bluebeard. I realize Henry VIII was a spoiled brat of a king, reigning at the time when being an absolute monarch meant something, but the Tudors were also craftily intelligent. This Henry just appears to be a demanding brute. There is very little attempt to portray his intelligence or his charm. He may have been king (and it's good to be king), but when he wanted to Henry could be charming. It doesn't come through here. The history itself is a bit screwy. Let's call it history lite. There is a bodice-ripper mentality to the writing. Let's get into the hairshirt with Katherine of Aragon or the sex with Anne Boleyn. Let's show brutal war at its most brutal. Yes, war really is horrid and the Renaissance Europe was a cruel place, but the feeling of this piece is not the historical value of violence and sex, but rather for their voyeuristic quality. It's a bit smarmy. The acting was melodramatic, relieved only by good performances by Charles Dance and Sean Bean and their characters die fairly quickly. This was 3 unpleasant hours that I don't want to repeat again. Classic classy British fair, NOT.

This production sinks immediately to the lowest common denominator of taste. The slow motion executions, the obligatory wedding night scene complete with subdued lighting through gauze, the extremely annoying and inappropriate music with vocal hooting, dramatic points preceded by the clomp clomp of the bodyguard marching in to the chamber of the next victim, the long gallop over the moors - or the beach, blood spurting onto the onlookers at the execution - and on and on. Not one lingering moment of opportunity to reflect on the enormous significance of Henry's reign. A complete waste of effort. Dumbing us down. Inaccurate, shallow, full of worn out techniques - avoid like the plague.

Like the film 'Elizabeth' the factual content of this film was very slim. Unlike Elizabeth it had no compensating qualities. It gave virtually no insight to the character of Henry or any of his wives, from the opening scenes where the Duke of Buckingham apparently survived his execution in 1513 to appear as a crusader for Catherine of Aragon 15 years later, to the death bed scene where Henry's family (who were actually celebrating New Year miles away) are clustered round his bed to hear his dying words. Jane gets knocked about and Henry hides round the corner during Anne Boleyn's trial-Complete nonsense! historically, once Henry had decided to lose a wife, he avoided all contact and blamed everyone else for their treatment. What is odd is that the directors chose to invent completely spurious scenes to illustrate Henry's crimes when there were plenty of real incidents which would have provided more than enough spectacle. I appreciate that Henry's court of more than 1000 people, glittering with excessive layers of sumptuous cloth and huge jewels could not be managed on a TV budget- but this Henry spent half his time in empty buildings talking to his echo, something impossible in the Tudor Court where even the King going to the toilet was surrounded by hereditary attendants. So, setting aside accuracy, we are left with the casting of Ray Winstone. Not impossible that Henry might have cracked coarse jokes, had a cockney accent and been free with his hands. Before he became a human boulder, he was also athletic, obsessed with doing all of those sports his father, fearful for the life of the only surviving son, had forbidden. But what happened to the literate defender of the faith? The king who owned dozens of pairs of reading glasses, who played a range of musical instruments and sang every day, who enjoyed disguising and dancing, who spent hours in disputes with intellectuals about faith? This film's Henry was like a soap opera character- a renaissance Dirty Den. Two dimensional and unbelievable. It was the choice to rely on spectacle rather than knowledge, assuming the audience to be dummies, incapable of following a plot, that sank this film. Another film which would not manage a release in cinema and will, I guess, be forgotten!