The Tragedy of The Tudors

By Heather Huntington on August 18th, 2009

  • Share
  • Link to StumbleUpon
  • 3 Comments

tudors-review-1

Hey, remember when I waxed all poetic about what TV series to catch up on over the summer? Well, I decided for myself that I’d start on watching The Tudors. Why did I do that?

Based, obviously, on the perpetually fascinating life of King Henry VIII, The Tudors bears the mark of everything Showtime knows how to do right–and wrong. Like Queer as Folk (and, for that matter, anything Showtime likes to show into the late night hours), it’s M.O. is to be a little salacious and sexy and racy. In this way, they do well. Jonathan Rhys Meyers‘ Henry gives a very mission-statement-esque portrayal of a young, vigorous Henry, constantly occupied with sinking his teeth into the flesh of either ripe dripping fruit or ripe dripping ladies. Like Weeds, this makes the portrayal of Henry a little unorthodox–not the buttoned up, boring BBC view of history one usually gets.

In this way, Tudors should be great. Making viewers able to see the historical figures as real people with real modern wants and needs makes it much more accessible for the massess–and me. Unfortunately, Showtime takes this great premise and then, basically, fucks it to death. In what I see as the following ways:

1. Jonathan Rhys Meyers. I am not sure there is any more unlikeable actor of his age range. Or others, for that matter. True, I haven’t met him, and there is always the possibility that in person he is a pussycat, he comes off as possibly the most angry and egotistical man yet to walk the earth. Who, perhaps, spends every last second of his time looking in the mirror and admiring his own lips. In case you doubt this, I will just tell you that his real name is Johnny O’Keefe, so he even had to cook up a more pretentious name for himself.  I get that this makes perfect casting sense for Henry–it is casting perfectly within type–but it still makes him hard to watch.

2. Other casting. Sure, I like Gabrielle Anwar. I even think she is sort of fun in her role. I also think she is about 20 years older than her character would have been, and 20 times tanner. Seriously, a near-40 yet unmarried English royal who looks like she’s been laying on the Rivera for a decade? Not so much. And don’t get me started on the girl who plays Anne Boleyn. Please note: Irish actress Maria Doyle Kennedy who plays Catherine of Aragon so well that I was certain she was actually Spanish is a complete exception to this rule.

3. Overacting. There seems to be a general directive on this show to chew the living shit out of the scenery. I’m not sure why this is necessary, but to has basically turned an English (i.e. reserved) historical drama into a Spanish telenovella. The melodrama is so excruciating that this, in the end, is what broke me. After watching people grunt and mug and yelp and all but put their hand to their brow and fan themselves, my husband and I couldn’t take it anymore. JRM’s terrible arm wrestling match at the end of Season 1 Disk 2 was the nail in the coffin. We sent it back to Netflix and took the rest of the disks off our list.

4. Historical inaccuracies. What kept us in it for even Disk 2 was the real parts of the Henry VIII story. I generally find history pretty boring, but if you turn it into a movie or TV show suddenly the medicine goes down much easier–more like entertainment. Of course, I understand there is liberty taken in this situation. But when after an episode in which I see Henry VIII’s sister Princess Margaret kill her husband, the King of Portugal, I run to Wikipedia and discover that actually she is a composite of two of Henry’s sisters, one of whom married the King of France, who died several months later of natural causes, I can’t take it anymore. The real story has more than enough twists and intrigue of its own; why say you’re doing a story on Henry VIII and then just start making things up?

So, we’ve had it. I’ll get my history lessons elsewhere. JRM (or Johnny O’Keefe, or whatever) can go look at his lips in the mirror some more; I’m not joining him.
(Pic courtesy of Sho.com)
And check out a clip from the show:

Comments

  1. Levi

    August 18th, 2009 - 4:13:31 PM

    Dude, You are an idiot. This is a brilliant show with amazing acting and writing. You obviously don't know jack about the show and can only nitpick over stupid details about how you don't like the actor or she is too tan. You are a disgrace to journalism and I am ashamed to have wasted two minutes reading this piece of crap.

    1

  2. kim

    August 19th, 2009 - 7:52:19 AM

    Wow! The only piece of this article that I agree with is the historical inaccuracies in the show. That part is tragic, I agree, and you should have ranked it as your FIRST issue with the show, not the last one. But other than that - the actual show is fantastic. JRM has the perfect personality for Henry. Egotistical, self absorbed, and power hungry. The only fault with him is that Henry was overweight and more than slightly repulsive to his later wives, not a hot guy. The fact that you neglected to even mention that is a problem with casting JRM, and instead attacked all the similarities he had with Henry is pretty terrible. Natalie Dormer, who played Anne was also great in her role. Anne was seductive, sultry, and knew how to manipulate the King. Her job was to be exactly how Anne was portrayed - how can you miss that?? And to comment on her tan - that's absolutely absurd and makes your entire review seem petty and baseless. I'm glad you know the skin complexion of all of the royals back in the day, since you seem to know nothing else about the time period. The dramatic acting is pretty dang spot on to how people acted if you actually study anything of the time period. Men were men and felt they needed to act as such. They did grunt and fight. Ladies were ladies and acted the way they were taught. Yeah they did swoon and fan - they weren't like the women of today, if they acted like we did - that would be a terrible show. This show is on Showtime - if you were expecting a real history lesson I'd have to question your check on reality. If you take issue with the history, then yes, I agree. But 90% of your review was based on nitpicking on extremely superficial items. I hope this is your last commentary on a show. I really like this site and love the posts and this by far has been the WORST one I have read. It sounds more like you are ranting to a girlfriend on the phone than writing something for public consumption.

    2

  3. kim

    August 19th, 2009 - 7:53:24 AM

    Missed a word above in the 3rd paragraph - comment on Gabrielle Anwar (Margaret's tan)...not Natalie Dormer's.

    3

Add your comment