A review in defense of The Tudors
While attempting to further immerse myself into the life of King Henry VIII following my viewing of the entirety of The Tudors, I began reading user reviews on IMDb.
What I found astounded me: many of the reviews are extremely negative, and I feel like these people are completely missing the point.
And so, in defense of my favorite television show, I will write a little bit about why I love this show and why it really shouldn't be immediately written off.
The primary complaint I noted amongst the reviews is that the show is grossly inaccurate in its telling of historical events. This is because IT IS A DRAMA, and so many of the events are dramatized to add interest. Also, even though it is a television series and not a two hour movie, it has time constraints and must move the story along at a pace that is conducive to the plot points the writer wants to touch upon. I'm very certain The Tudors was never intended to serve as a basis for solid historical fact. Its primary goal is to entertain people. And while there are those out there (including myself) who absolutely adore history and take an interest in learning facts about times gone by, not everyone is committed to searching for the truth. I feel that this show is a good way to introduce viewers to people and events they may have heard about in passing or in a class, showing them in a different, more entertaining light, which may in turn provoke further interest. I know that my personal interest in Henry VIII stems directly from watching The Tudors, and I am grateful that it was there to serve as a starting point. But to condemn the show for inaccuracies is almost laughable, as it completely misses the point. Of course it isn't accurate. Writer/creator Michael Hirst talks about how he wrote this series as a dramatic retelling of events, not as a documentary, and that if it had been intended to be accurate, it would have been done differently. Many reviews accused the show of "dumbing down" history. But I feel that what Mr. Hirst was attempting to do was to make these grand historical figures seem more accessible. Which brings me to another point often brought up in reviews: the casting of Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry. Most people object simply because of his appearance, which, to be fair, is nothing like that of historical Henry VIII. Some of the reviewers suggested that Steven Waddington, who played the Duke of Buckingham, would have been a better Henry based on physical appearance. But I think this, again, shows that these people are missing the point. What I think that The Tudors is trying to do is to allow the viewers to gain an understanding of the people portrayed. Henry was charismatic and attractive. If a person is supposed to believe that about Henry, it makes sense to cast an attractive man as Henry. Personally, I would have trouble understanding why women were flocking to someone like Steven Waddington simply because he does not possess the same physical beauty as JRM. Intellectually, I can comprehend that ideas of beauty were different in the 16th century, and that by today's standards Henry VIII might not be very attractive, especially as he ages. By giving the show a beautiful cast, the casting directors were trying to help people understand the mesmerizing effect these people had on each other. I've also read complaints about JRM's portrayal of Henry. Some people said he made the king much like a spoiled little boy or that he was overly dramatic. Personally, I didn't get either of those impressions. What JRM did was make me feel sympathy and compassion for a figure who is often portrayed as a tyrannical monster. I feel for his Henry, and I like him. As a viewer, I get to watch him go through difficult periods in his personal and political lives and how those two things effect each other. I actually feel that way about a lot of the figures portrayed on The Tudors; I don't really hate any of them. And I think that getting an idea of who these people were and what they did while being able to provide arguments for their varying opinions is a good thing. I often found myself liking characters on opposing sides of an issue, and that my opinions of and feelings towards individual characters developed as their alliances and opinions changed. I think it's wonderful for me, as a viewer, to be able to see both sides of an argument. I felt for Anne Boleyn and Cardinal Wolsey; Sir Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell; for Mary and Elizabeth; and for many of the others.
To summarize, (in my opinion), The Tudors does three things:
1. It entertains people.
2. It allows viewers to form connections to great historical figures by establishing emotional connections.
3. It provokes further interest in an awesome period of history.
It does not:
1. Provide an accurate history lesson.
2. Attempt to portray historical figures as they physically appeared in the 16th century, in individual faces or costumes.
Side note:
Yes, the costumes were more elaborate and provocative than 16th century fashion allowed for. This was to attempt to make the period seem as lavish to viewers as it would have been to those who lived it.
Yes, there was a lot of sex. People in the 16th century had sex. Maybe not quite so much, or with as many different people, but, again, it was to make clear that promiscuity was something that happened in Henry's court, though obviously in a 16th rather than 21st century fashion.
I am really interested to see what other people (especially fans of the show) have to say.
Do feel free to let me know. :]
What I found astounded me: many of the reviews are extremely negative, and I feel like these people are completely missing the point.
And so, in defense of my favorite television show, I will write a little bit about why I love this show and why it really shouldn't be immediately written off.
The primary complaint I noted amongst the reviews is that the show is grossly inaccurate in its telling of historical events. This is because IT IS A DRAMA, and so many of the events are dramatized to add interest. Also, even though it is a television series and not a two hour movie, it has time constraints and must move the story along at a pace that is conducive to the plot points the writer wants to touch upon. I'm very certain The Tudors was never intended to serve as a basis for solid historical fact. Its primary goal is to entertain people. And while there are those out there (including myself) who absolutely adore history and take an interest in learning facts about times gone by, not everyone is committed to searching for the truth. I feel that this show is a good way to introduce viewers to people and events they may have heard about in passing or in a class, showing them in a different, more entertaining light, which may in turn provoke further interest. I know that my personal interest in Henry VIII stems directly from watching The Tudors, and I am grateful that it was there to serve as a starting point. But to condemn the show for inaccuracies is almost laughable, as it completely misses the point. Of course it isn't accurate. Writer/creator Michael Hirst talks about how he wrote this series as a dramatic retelling of events, not as a documentary, and that if it had been intended to be accurate, it would have been done differently. Many reviews accused the show of "dumbing down" history. But I feel that what Mr. Hirst was attempting to do was to make these grand historical figures seem more accessible. Which brings me to another point often brought up in reviews: the casting of Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry. Most people object simply because of his appearance, which, to be fair, is nothing like that of historical Henry VIII. Some of the reviewers suggested that Steven Waddington, who played the Duke of Buckingham, would have been a better Henry based on physical appearance. But I think this, again, shows that these people are missing the point. What I think that The Tudors is trying to do is to allow the viewers to gain an understanding of the people portrayed. Henry was charismatic and attractive. If a person is supposed to believe that about Henry, it makes sense to cast an attractive man as Henry. Personally, I would have trouble understanding why women were flocking to someone like Steven Waddington simply because he does not possess the same physical beauty as JRM. Intellectually, I can comprehend that ideas of beauty were different in the 16th century, and that by today's standards Henry VIII might not be very attractive, especially as he ages. By giving the show a beautiful cast, the casting directors were trying to help people understand the mesmerizing effect these people had on each other. I've also read complaints about JRM's portrayal of Henry. Some people said he made the king much like a spoiled little boy or that he was overly dramatic. Personally, I didn't get either of those impressions. What JRM did was make me feel sympathy and compassion for a figure who is often portrayed as a tyrannical monster. I feel for his Henry, and I like him. As a viewer, I get to watch him go through difficult periods in his personal and political lives and how those two things effect each other. I actually feel that way about a lot of the figures portrayed on The Tudors; I don't really hate any of them. And I think that getting an idea of who these people were and what they did while being able to provide arguments for their varying opinions is a good thing. I often found myself liking characters on opposing sides of an issue, and that my opinions of and feelings towards individual characters developed as their alliances and opinions changed. I think it's wonderful for me, as a viewer, to be able to see both sides of an argument. I felt for Anne Boleyn and Cardinal Wolsey; Sir Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell; for Mary and Elizabeth; and for many of the others.
To summarize, (in my opinion), The Tudors does three things:
1. It entertains people.
2. It allows viewers to form connections to great historical figures by establishing emotional connections.
3. It provokes further interest in an awesome period of history.
It does not:
1. Provide an accurate history lesson.
2. Attempt to portray historical figures as they physically appeared in the 16th century, in individual faces or costumes.
Side note:
Yes, the costumes were more elaborate and provocative than 16th century fashion allowed for. This was to attempt to make the period seem as lavish to viewers as it would have been to those who lived it.
Yes, there was a lot of sex. People in the 16th century had sex. Maybe not quite so much, or with as many different people, but, again, it was to make clear that promiscuity was something that happened in Henry's court, though obviously in a 16th rather than 21st century fashion.
I am really interested to see what other people (especially fans of the show) have to say.
Do feel free to let me know. :]