I can’t tell you how stoked I was to pen the first Tudors TV Watch. Yet now that I’m actually writing it, I’m beginning to feel the whole idea may be barmy. Just think about it. We can’t really speculate on what will happen in future episodes; to do that with even the loosest of historical fictions is, well, too easy. We don’t think we know what will happen to Anne, Henry, Brandon and the five Tommys (More, Cromwell, Wyatt, Cranmer, and Boleyn). We know. Or at least I hope we do. (Here’s a mnemonic device to remember what happened to Henry’s wives, at least: divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived.)
We could stick to dissecting the episodes, which poses its own problems. If we ream a character’s (say Henry’s) behavior (he is awfully cruel to Katherine), we can’t forget that he is based on an actual person. It’s not like the writers had a choice in the matter: He did divorce and banish her. On the other hand, we don’t want to talk only about the performances (does Jonathan Rhys Meyers really play Henry too dour?) or get bogged down with what’s accurate and what’s not (I’m no scholar, but I’m pretty sure the real Tudors didn’t drop so many F-bombs). We might very well be, like Brandon was in every season 1 episode, screwed.
That said, let’s jump right in, shall we? This episode takes place two years after last season’s finale and the first thing I noticed was that everyone had a lot more hair (the King, Brandon, Wyatt). Maybe the fashions changed? Did the Reformation bring curls? The second thing that caught my eye was Hans Matheson (pictured) joining the cast as Henry’s new personal chaplain, Thomas Cranmer. I love this guy. He was perfect as Yury in the recent Doctor Zhivago remake (I know… I know… but it is possible to be as good as, if not better than, Omar Sharif). If you call yourself a fan of costume drama and you haven’t seen it, I suggest Netflixing Zhivago post haste. Matheson has a whole page dedicated to him in the Tudors press release, so I’m guessing he’ll be a big part of the show, especially with Henry becoming head of the English church and all.
addCredit(“Hans Matheson: Julie Dennis Brothers”)
Speaking of the church, Peter O’Toole is just plain rock star asthe new Pope. I’m thinking he’s here to provide the snark that lastseason so desperately lacked. What did he say about his predecessor?"Although it was very wrong for some people to dig up his dead bodyand stab it in the streets, I can understand their sentiments." Andabout Anne? "Why doesn’t someone just get rid of her." My sentimentexactly.
To be honest, Natalie Dormer as Anne had begun to bore me towardsthe end of last year. She was all smirks and turned up nose. I’m hopingAnne’s impending hardships (hint: she’s not going to give Henry thatmale heir she so often promised) bring back her range. However, whileI’m happy to see Charles Brandon grow up and finally get serious withone woman, I’m afraid this means there could be a major decline inbodice ripping—which I have a feeling is going to be replaced byviolence anyway. Forget last year’s vomit-inducing bloodlettings, we’reonly one episode in and already someone’s been BOILED ALIVE. We alsonow have a hooded assassin going after Anne.
It seems silly not to comment on JRM as Henry, but really, hehardly stood out. It wasn’t until the end, when he gave that poor boy abeating for delivering Katherine’s goodbye message, that I really beganto feel like the King was there at all. That wasn’t necessarily a badthing: Who hasn’t had their moments when they thought Cromwell,Princess Magaret, or even Thomas Tallis (remember him?), were just asinteresting? And this year gives us a couple of great downfalls to lookforward to: Anne’s, Thomas More’s. I know little about Thomas Wyatt thereal person, but in the show he’s shaping up to be one crazy stalker.That can’t be good when your infatuation is with the future Queen. I’vegot a feeling he’s in for a right bollocking from the King.
So PopWatchers, who can’t wait for next week when that hitman goesafter Anne? Any history buffs know who the masked man is? Anyone spotany major inaccuracies or love a particular moment?
Comments (1-16) of 16 Add your comment
Thank you for the shout out to Hans Matheson!!!!!!!! I’ve been a fan of his for years and waiting for other people to take notice!
I was so looking forward to watching the first season…and then, after during every episode I would be so confused: but Henry has two sisters, one married the King of Scotland, one married the Queen of France. But she died five years before that guy! Hey, Henry’s illegitimate son died at 19 after being Lord of Ireland for a couple of years. And more, more, more. They may get the basic facts right (Henry did marry women, then get rid of them somehow and marry another) but so many basic facts are wrong it made my head spin (if you don’t have Henry’s sister as Queen of Scotland you don’t end up with Mary, Queen of Scots, her granddaughter). This stuff is actually history. I gave up on it all.
I agree with the poster before me. I’m a history nut, primarily the medieval period, and was looking forward to watching the show (I should have known better since I’m the type that threw things when I watched Beowulf due to all the inaccuracies.). I can deal with some inaccuracies and expect it but things just got way out of hand for my tastes…especially all the forced dramatic tension that they apparently decided to shoehorn in to make it seem more “trendy” (I’m looking at you ‘guy who seduces Tallis as a gay lover’). It just became ridiculous. History is so full of interesting stories full with drama and scandals…why feel the need to change it or worse, dumb it down/sex it up for American audiences?
Hey, Auriana, can you recommend a good book on the Tudors? And I mean the real Tudors.
Lila – one of the best is The Wives of Henry VIII by Antonia Frasier – scholarly and very readable…and is at the library for free!
The omission that bothers me is that Brandon and Henry’s sister have children, because Lady Jane Grey is their grandaughter. Unless I missed it, I’m not sure how they’re going to work that in now.
Hmm…when Henry goes to visit Brandon. Brandon mentions that he married his ward because he “needed a mother for his young son.” Maybe that’s one of his kids with Margaret? It was a real throwaway line. I remember thinking they must be setting up a future plotline.
I agree wholeheartedly with Auriana…history is already incredibly interesting. Why does Hollywood feel the need to change actual events to make them “racier”? As someone who studied a lot of European history (esp Russia, 19th c – present), I can tell you there is plenty of true juiciness without making stuff up. This is the primary reason I’ve never even attempted to get into this series.
Why do people somehow believe that the Middle Ages was not full of things like, oh, f-bombs and swear words and gay people? Of course they were! Read Chaucer for a little education on vulgar words, specifically the Miller’s Tale. And perhaps the character in the show historically wasn’t gay, but let’s not kid ourselves: gay and lesbian people have existed for a long time. There are scholars who think that Shakespeare’s sonnets were written to a guy, and just referred to the “Dark Lady” for propriety’s sake. Whether or not that’s true, the Merchant-Ivorying of the past has GOT TO STOP, people! It’s not all about pretty, frothy dresses and minuets!
Hey, hey, hey, I don’t think anyone here is saying that history wasn’t full of “f-bombs or swear words” or sex or that there weren’t homosexuals in Tudor England. What we’re saying is that there were so many true-life stories like these for Showtime to mine, that it seems silly for them to go an make things up. On a side note, I do wonder how the “f-bomb” was used in the 1500s. A friend told me that, though it was in use, it’s actually used incorrectly on the show. Any ideas?
Dear Anon: It’s funny how you slam the “Merchant-Ivory-ing” of the past, when it’s Merchant-Ivory that had so many groundbreaking gay plotlines in their heritage films. Sure, there were a lot of “men in white linen” and “women in frothy dresses,” but it only hid the subversiveness of these pictures.
Sadly I have to wait until the CBC in Canada starts to show the second season. It hasn’t been announced yet. Looks like I’ll have to wait a little longer for my fill of Henry Cavil. So hot!
After reading the bloggers’ complaints about all the inaccuracies, I guess I just have to watch The Tudors and take everything at face value and go with the entertainment factor. Forget the facts, Showtime has taken historical license to a whole new level.
I am obsessed with anything to do with Henry VIII. So this season and last I have noticed some MAJOR inaccuracies. Some made me pretty angry. Then I had to accept that this is historical fiction. Season 1 had tons of inaccuracies. The biggest one right now is that Henry’s sister Mary should be alive and married to Brandon. Margaret should be married to the King of Scotland. Putting the inaccuracies aside, this is a really great show. I look forward to it every week.
i really want to love this show, but i can’t eventhough i still watch it. the facts are way off. but i can’t get over the bad acting and over the top storylines. JR meyers is not masculine for henry. i actually like him, but i think he is mis-cast for this role. i can’t get over that he is not ginger! it’s like doing a film about elizabeth 1 who has black hair! they could have atleast dyed his hair. henry cavil is a HOT piece! i hope the show gets better but it prob won’t. PS: to the merchant ivory haters, they made some great films that did push the bondaries. you should check them out.
Yes, and killing off Henry’s sister Mary (called Margaret on the show) deletes the future of one the best dramas in the Tudor history – she was Lady Jane Grey’s grandmother and only possible link to the the English throne.