defending thomas tallis

May 14, 2007 18:06

"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 not? )

[tv] the tudors, meta

Leave a comment

(The comment has been removed)

(The comment has been removed)

the_grynne May 14 2007, 14:07:47 UTC
Someone actually pointed out to me that if Hirst had wanted a gay character, why didn't he simply pick George Boleyn, who already has the charge of incest and the rumour of homosexuality attached to him.

And I don't deny that there isn't something a little shifty about Hirst's contrarian, sensationalist tendencies. But on this particular case I'm leaning towards judging him on the basis of the results, rather than his motives, because at this current juncture, Tallis and Compton are the most interesting people in the show, for me. :)

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

anonymous November 2 2007, 22:07:19 UTC
Why on earth would it be even mildly offensive that a homosexual contributed to the church's music or art. Have you ever heard of a chap called Michaelangelo? I am not missing the point that they went out of their way to do it. A truly non bigotted person would not consider it as offensive. You sound like a rather silly, small kind of person.

Reply

tallis - tudors BBC anonymous November 17 2007, 12:48:06 UTC
There is something important within the broadcasting of The Tudors. That being it has very little to do with British history of this time.
The contemporary need to 'sex-up' what is effectively a deeply intriguing historical period makes it appealing to, shall we say, the less educated members of the viewing public.
As for Tallis'(or William Compton, for that matter)portrail as a gay man. Well there's no evidence to support he was. However, it was not uncommon for intimate, not necessarily sexual, relationships between same same sexes at this time, or indeed before - Edward et al. The Victorians ratified all sexual relationships through law.
With especial regards to Tallis it remains unimportant as to his true sexuality for his sublime music remains as a testament to his genius and the spectacular achievements encompassed within the Tudor and Elizabethan ages.

Reply

the_grynne May 14 2007, 14:00:45 UTC
Is there a double standard here? Sure, I don't think anyone can deny that. But the double standard is justifiable because we're hardly operating on a level playing field, here. (Nor, for that matter, were the Tudors. How many people from that time do we know to have been homosexual?)

And I am compelled to add that Tallis isn't exactly "living, breathing" any more.

I'm not offended by the manner of your comment. Thank you for putting your opinion in the open.

Reply

How many people from that time do we know to have been homosexual anonymous June 9 2008, 02:59:38 UTC
How about Anne's brother. He was.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up