Tudors, The
From Zanecorpwiki
Ever wonder what it would be like if countries were run by 12 year olds? The Tudors explores this question.
Summary
Overall, enjoyable, well done, and worth the watch. However, compared to some of the other excellent mini-series that have been coming out lately, it falls short. The problem is that none of the major characters are sympathetic in the least. Not only are they unlike myself or anyone I know, but they're just not likable. Fail, succeed... who cares? Luckily so many other things are quite excellent. Good acting, direction, costumes, sets, etc.
The first two seasons are definitely the best as Rhys just can't deliver a believable aging Henry. I don't blame him so much as the production. They should have gotten someone else to play Henry. Especially in the third season. Rhys is so concerned with feigning a gruff voice and pretending infirmity that his performance goes absolutely flat. Old Henry is just not a character he can believably do. And the makeup is just silly... he looks nothing like an old man, and nothing at all like the historical Henry. He just looks like a fit 30 year old in a lot of makeup trying way to hard.
Overall, it's just a little unfortunate that it seems to give up at the very end. Still, I love costume dramas so I still very much enjoyed the whole of the series.
Details and Notes
Some minor spoilers if you don't know your history.
Cardinal Wolsey comes the closest to being sympathetic. He's greedy and cunning, but truly loyal and in the end one cannot help but feel sorrow for him. Wolsey deserves what he gets, but not the way he gets it. It's an interesting, tragic fall. Plus, Sam Niel is my favorite member of the cast.
As I said, no one is very sympathetic and aside from Wolsey, they're not very interesting either. Jonathan Rhys does a good job, but this Henry is such a petulant, annoying character--and not in an interesting way--that I find myself wishing he'd simply been assassinated. I can't help but feel that the real Henry was a bit more interesting, if not more enigmatic. I noted in the summary that Rhys falls short in the last season, simply unable to convey the truth of an aging, failing monarch, but I don't blame him.
It's really a problem with the production itself. As far as we know, Henry's illnesses and his leg wound, and increasing weight and failing health were a big, big part of his story. The Henry in this production looks pretty good right up till the end. Sure, they talk about his leg from time to time, but the we never see any of the problems with the leg or Henry's bleed into the kings character. There should be a scene where Henry rashly sentences someone to death for a relatively minor offense, barely holds it together while he limps to a side room where he collapses in pain. Juxtapose that with him waking up, announcing his leg feel much better and commuting someone else's sentence. That would be a more interesting, and--AFAIK--probably a more true Henry.
Yet, for some reason, the production focuses on the characters. It would have been much better to focus on the wider story. Instead, all the intrigue and wider politics happens offstage. Even Henry's attempt to divorce his wife is so focused on Henry's point of view that it's a pretty flat tale. I guess Thomas More is interesting too--but after he burned a nice man for heresy, my only thought was to reach across time and smite the man for his arrogant cruelty and utter hypocrisy.[notes 1]
Not that there aren't good things. There is one scene where the king is masturbating into a towel held by his personal secretary, and I'm very interested to know what that's about. The sets and costumes alone are worth watching.
Notes
- ↑ Apparently More burned a man for distributing copies of the New Testament. Though I generally consider myself a Catholic apologist, I'm reconsidering that stance on that point in consideration of the fact that the man was named a saint by none other than the generally impressive John Paul II.
