defending thomas tallis
"If Thomas Tallis was not a homosexual then why portray him as such?"
I've been reading different versions of this sentiment on various blogs and boards for the last few weeks, and I thought it was time that I came up with an answer to satisfy myself.
~
Why make Henry a slightly younger man when he meets Anne than he "factually" was? Could it be because it suits the sexy image of Henry VIII that the show wants to portray better than if they'd cast a forty-year old? Why cast JRM when even the young Henry wouldn't have looked like him? And am I being too cynical, but don't you think that unorthodox decision won the show some viewers?
Leaving aside the implications of portraying a famous and revered religious composer in a homosexual liaison, which is obviously why it's gotten so many people's knickers in a twist (and the vitriol from some Christians has been, shall we say, considerable), I think the answer to the question is: Why not? It's historical fiction we're dealing with here. Isn't that an invitation to make historical characters more relatable? That means inventing the personal lives of figures that we only have public record to go on.
The historical consultant on HBO's "Rome", Jonathan Stamp, said (was it on a DVD commentary?) something interesting about the difference between the Classical era and the Middle Ages. Personal records - diaries, letters, etc. - from the Middle Ages are very, very scarce, compared to the Romans and Greeks. We have historical access (not to mention a lot of "lewd" art) to the Romans' private thoughts and feelings, which might cut against the "socially acceptable" grain, but less so to the people of the Christian kingdoms - Rabelais is a refreshing exception - not until much later, with Pepys and other diarists. But that doesn't mean that these people were any less real or red-blooded than us. And it gives us a certain license to invent.
As to its falsity: Absence of proof is not fact. And who is naive enough to really believe absolutely everything that history tells us anyway?
Personally, I enjoyed the relationship because a) I found both Tallis and Compton very sympathetic in their own right, b) they provided an interesting counterpoint to Henry's equally adulterous, equally uneven in terms of social power, but far more mercenary, relationship with Anne Boleyn, and c) compared to the treatment of Henry/Anne, and Brandon/Margaret, it was downright tasteful, even sweet.
And if that's not enough on the subject, sally over to my post on Tallis as a contemporary er...16th century reading of Ovid (that pre-Christian enough for you?).
I've been reading different versions of this sentiment on various blogs and boards for the last few weeks, and I thought it was time that I came up with an answer to satisfy myself.
~
Why make Henry a slightly younger man when he meets Anne than he "factually" was? Could it be because it suits the sexy image of Henry VIII that the show wants to portray better than if they'd cast a forty-year old? Why cast JRM when even the young Henry wouldn't have looked like him? And am I being too cynical, but don't you think that unorthodox decision won the show some viewers?
Leaving aside the implications of portraying a famous and revered religious composer in a homosexual liaison, which is obviously why it's gotten so many people's knickers in a twist (and the vitriol from some Christians has been, shall we say, considerable), I think the answer to the question is: Why not? It's historical fiction we're dealing with here. Isn't that an invitation to make historical characters more relatable? That means inventing the personal lives of figures that we only have public record to go on.
The historical consultant on HBO's "Rome", Jonathan Stamp, said (was it on a DVD commentary?) something interesting about the difference between the Classical era and the Middle Ages. Personal records - diaries, letters, etc. - from the Middle Ages are very, very scarce, compared to the Romans and Greeks. We have historical access (not to mention a lot of "lewd" art) to the Romans' private thoughts and feelings, which might cut against the "socially acceptable" grain, but less so to the people of the Christian kingdoms - Rabelais is a refreshing exception - not until much later, with Pepys and other diarists. But that doesn't mean that these people were any less real or red-blooded than us. And it gives us a certain license to invent.
As to its falsity: Absence of proof is not fact. And who is naive enough to really believe absolutely everything that history tells us anyway?
Personally, I enjoyed the relationship because a) I found both Tallis and Compton very sympathetic in their own right, b) they provided an interesting counterpoint to Henry's equally adulterous, equally uneven in terms of social power, but far more mercenary, relationship with Anne Boleyn, and c) compared to the treatment of Henry/Anne, and Brandon/Margaret, it was downright tasteful, even sweet.
And if that's not enough on the subject, sally over to my post on Tallis as a contemporary er...16th century reading of Ovid (that pre-Christian enough for you?).