Each age gets the Tudors it deserves
During my recent bout with infirmity, I dusted off some old videotapes of the 1970 BBC series “The Six Wives of Henry VIII” and watched it.
I had fond memories of it from my original viewing over forty years ago, and I was not disappointed. Yes, the production is fairly primitive, looking mostly like a play with cheap sets, although the costumes are pretty good. But the scripts and the acting are excellent (I’ve seen three of the six episodes so far), really quite superb. Subtle and yet clear, highly intelligent, and for the most part historically accurate.
The actors even resemble their historic predecessors—case in point, the real Henry and Keith Michell, who plays him in the series:
Or the real Archbishop Cranmer and Bernard Hepton, who plays him in the series:
I appreciate that sort of attention to detail.
Sex is in there of course, and violence, (this is Henry VIII, after all), but it’s suggested rather than shown graphically. Although the episodes are long, they move along rather nicely to their already-known and usually grisly conclusions. Death was a constant companion in those days, sometimes of infants and young women in childbirth, and often of diseases and infections that today would be child’s play, as well as that all-too-frequent cause: execution for treason, often on trumped-up charges. The nobility who were involved in power plays often met violent ends.
Interested in other depictions of the same period, I rented a much more recent depiction of the same period, “The Tudors.” It was a popular Canadian/Irish series that aired in 2007-2010 on Showtime, and I was curious, despite the trepidation I felt on looking at the photos on the cover of the DVD:
Who was this smoldering (and non-redheaded) rebel without a cause, and all those bosomy torsos behind him (as opposed to the flattening and binding effect of real Tudor fashion)? And take a look at the images generated by a Google search for “The Tudors.” But I gave it a chance anyway; how bad could it be?
Plenty bad, it turns out. I could only take about twenty minutes of watching. Mainly scenes of simulated and unconvincing sex, and a script so chaotic and unclear that most of the time the viewer has no idea who it is he/she is watching doing what. Soft-core porn has its place, I suppose, but that’s not what I signed up for.
But the worst part of all was the character of Henry. Entirely unconvincing in conveying the magnitude of the historical figure—both good and bad—this guy was just an angry punk trying (and, IMHO opinion, failing) to be sexy, despite all the bare-ass flailing.
It strikes me that the difference between the two series is no accident whatsoever. Scripts and productions are tailored to the times, and the times they have a-changed.
And all those great teeth and that clear skin and shining hair! Not bad for having no dentists and bathing once or twice a lifetime.
I recently discovered the Hulu web site and have been watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents. The most recent one I watched (season 1, episode 20) featured Claude Rains in possibly one of his finest performances and a young Charles Bronson who was no slouch either.
I think watching stuff like that is going to help me stop marveling that we elected our current president so he could buy our gas and pay for our mortgage.
Dumbing down history for the dumbed down masses. More reason to support charters and vouchers.
I felt the same the first time I tried to watch the series, then I stumbled across it on the BBC channel and got hooked. I wish you’d watch the whole thing, and then share your thoughts. However, life is short… nasty and brutish too.
The thing was how gross the series was. Did they have to have him jacking off into a cup held by one of his flunkies?
You might want to take a look at the old movie from, I think, 1933, “The Private Life of Henry VIII.” Dated and undoubtedly less accurate historically than the BBC series, but a great deal of fun.
Neo,
I completely agree with you assessment of The Tudors, but with respect I think you’re comparing apples and oranges.
The Beeb in 1970 had its own “Masterpiece Theatre”-kind of angle, of course, but pay cable in the 2000s is just, well, pay cable. As someone who works in that industry (not the programming side, thank heaven), take it from me: no one involved in making ‘Tudors’ is the least bit interested in history, much less an accurate portrayal thereof. It is — as you say — soft core porn — as is about 90% of pay cable (the rest is gratuitous violence); they simply use Tudor-era trappings as gilded backdrop. There are, after all, only so many ways you can dress up meaningless sex; randy royals were just next in line.
Looks like it’s available here…
http://www.youtube.com/user/littlemissboleyn
nolanimrod, my wife and I have watched all of the half hour and full hour Alfred Hitchcock shows on Hulu and we invariably check the credits at the end just to see if our hunches about the vaguely familiar faces were right.
Neo, I’m so glad to hear that someone else has had the same reaction to “The Tudors” as I had. If I want porn, soft or hard, I will look for it. If I want to hear about the sexual peccadillos of historic figures, I will read about them. I, however, don’t find this stuff to be compelling video, nor historic, and I returned the discs to my local library as soon as I could afford the gas!
Don’t forget the supremely talented Glenda Jackson in the sequel ‘Elizabeth R”.
I also recall the Masterpiece Theatre version with much affection. Yes, it was highly detailed, and the costumes worn by the cast were often duplicated exactly from various paintings of the wives – and it was excellent that the actors really looked so very much like the characters they played.
In defense of the Tudors – although ugh – many of the actors looked too modern, too 21st century, (especially the actress who played Jane Seymour as Tudor Barbie) and the historical inaccuracies were just horrendous… the one thing that I do have to give that show credit for was in giving a sense of what a snake-pit of treachery and ambition the court of Henry VIII actually was. I thought it put over the sense that he was a young god-rock-star king at the beginning of his rule, and that bit, by bit, he turned into an uncontrollable monster — and the sober and responsible ministers of his court were just plain horrified. I think it was in season two – and the Jeremy Northam as Sir Thomas More, realizing that there was no one at all left among Henry’s government who could talk sense to Henry and have him pay attention at all. That was good…
BTW, nice reminiscence at Chicagoboyz.com – here
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/22123.html
about great miniseries that we all recall fondly.
I agree it was bad, but I got sucked in and watched the whole series anyway.
I did like Jeremy Northam in the role of St. Thomas More, but I have a bit of a crush and admit I’ll pretty much watch him in anything. Loved him in Emma.
http://jeremynortham.net/
Thanks for discussing that original BBC production. It brought back fond memories of being a young teen and being fascinated by that production-so much so that it gave me a 35 plus year interest in the Tudors.
I also really enjoyed Glenda’s Jackson’s portrayal of Elizabeth. I was able to find the series on VCR tapes at our library several years ago and appreciated watching them again. Terrific acting and good scripts.
Yes it has been a terrible disappointment. I was surprised by how unwatchable it is. Its especially quite gory and violent. Too bad. I had been looking forward to a high production value, albeit campy King Henry VIII series, and I always liked Jonathon Rees Meyer, or whatever his name is. He was great in “Bend it like Beckham”, but even I cannot watch this thing, and I am able to watch a lot of dreck. Yes the old Masterpiece Theatre series was amazing, as was the wonderful Elizabeth R with Glenda Jackson. I guess it’s the times.
Have recently seen the new “Jane Eyre” movie that came out and loved it. The leads are great. Might even see it again.
The original BBC production about Henry VIII got me hooked on Masterpiece Theater when I was a newly wed in Houston. I sort of remember watching it on a B&W TV.
Masterpiece Theater has always been a favorite of mine and is one of the few reasons I’d hate to see PBS go.
Great teeth are a function of heredity plus calcium consumption. There were plenty of folks throughout history who had nice teeth. (There were also plenty of people who didn’t, which is why nice white teeth were ever considered a sign of beauty. Toothbrushes, mouthwash, and all that were not invented in the 20th century.
As for bathing… well, yes, by Tudor times people were getting rather nervous about bathing, mostly because the London city water supplies were getting pretty bad. Ditto the idea that fresh air through an open window could make you sick — if you lived in London in the Renaissance, yup it could. But “not bathing” at the public bathhouses anymore didn’t mean that people didn’t wash themselves, or take the Renaissance equivalent of a sponge bath. Soap recipes were a great preoccupation of Tudor and Elizabethan women.
The Irish of the time, of course, never gave up bathing daily or more often still, but they had much better water and every peasant had his own sauna-size bathhouse out back, pften dug out of the hill or in a little shed.
I agree that the clear skin is unlikely, given the court staying up so late; but again, a rich person is a person who gets decent nutrition during childhood, and girls don’t lose their beauty in a day.
Great teeth are a function of heredity plus calcium consumption. There were plenty of folks throughout history who had nice teeth.
Heh–one of my ancestors, who lived in the eighteenth century and died around 1790, was described as living to the age of 78 with a full head of hair and “every tooth in his head white and sound.”
I had been considering Netflixing “The Tudors,” but after your description, I’m thinking, “Why bother?” I’ll check out the BBC series you mentioned instead–thanks for the rec.
The acoustics on the BBC sound stages make the older series unwatchable to me.
Took me about 10 minutes of “I, Claudius” before I had to turn it off for its nails-on-chalkboard effect.
By all accounts, though, Game of Thrones is pretty damn faithful to the original book – which does have a lot of sex, mind you, but it’s generally important to the plot. (To wit: every marriage or romance in the series leads to some kind of colorful, blood-soaked disaster. Even unrequited love. Maybe ESPECIALLY unrequited love.)
Folks, there’s something that should be on all our radar screens: Senate Bill 679.
Under the guise of “streamlining” the appointment process, this Chuck Schumer-sponsored usurpation of power would remove the “advise and consent” function of the Senate for over 200 presidential appointments.
Therefore seriously weakening (even further) the system of Checks and Balances and putting the presidency on steroids.
See the Heritage Foundation’s alarming report here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/04/Speed-Up-Nominations-and-Confirmations-but-Do-Not-Enact-S-679
This has been going on quietly while the Public are distracted by bread and circuses/Bin Liner’s demise. And it may well pass: it has support from people like Lamar Alexander and Scott Brown. Bad enough that Oboner has appointed so many CZARS, now this.
The media are a shambles when attempting to re-envision what they have plagiarized and can no longer originally create.
Btw, The Tudor Decadence is a more accurate description of modern American socialites and Hollywood elites and DC political flunkies than it is of the history in question.
What you see is what you can expect from rapist Hollywood directors, William’s Refrigerating Cash fund. Clinton’s sexual harassment, Obama’s golf vacations while laughing at US casualties in Afghanistan, and so on and so forth.
acr wrote, “Don’t forget the supremely talented Glenda Jackson in the sequel ‘Elizabeth R”.”
Oh, YES! I think that was a much better series. She was absolutely brilliant. And someone has uploaded the whole thing. Ep. 1, part 1