More Active Posts
Front Page
The Tudors
 |
 8 Comments |
American critics often decry the “televisionization” of a historical event or a classic work of fiction as a minor tragedy, an event to be mourned by anyone with an appreciation for all that is true and good. But critics apparently liked the smooth flesh and colorful costumes in the first season of Showtime’s The Tudors enough to say it was at least “entertaining,” despite their professional objections to its “neutered” history.
Now in the early stages of its second season on Showtime, The Tudors (rated TV-MA for occasional bloody violence and sexual content) is a simplified, romanticized depiction of Henry VIII’s “reign and marriages.” Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (he of the smoldering blue eyes) plays Henry, who by historical accounts probably looked more like the ruddy, bearded John Rhys-Davies. Rhys-Meyers, who stunningly portrayed the intense, womanizing Raskolnikov character in Woody Allen’s Dostoevsky allegory Match Point, is without question flat and dimensionless as a monarch. He vacillates between sensual whispering and petulant shouting without much of anything memorable to say.
But he is one thing that’s entirely believable: insane. The real, unscriptedness of Rhys-Meyers’ acting does give The Tudors the quality of seeming like we might be watching the real Henry VIII in action. In this sense, the unrealistically hot Henry is a success; we watch him because he’s Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, and hate him anyway, just like we would if he were played by someone more repulsive … more historically accurate, perhaps.
The New York Times whined that the show is “spritzed with Febreze,” but that’s precisely why it works as “historical” entertainment from the masses. “Showtime commissioned me to write an entertainment, a soap opera, and not history,” creator/writer Michael Hirst told the New York Times. “And we want people to watch it.” Common people arguably have always remembered more of history as sexed-up, simplified storylines than as nuanced, academic psychoanalysis. No objection to accurate, scholarly history or even to the occasional intellectual T.V. series, but this is still television. And most people still watch television to enjoy attractive actors and the escape of a fictional story.
This isn’t a fictional story, however, and the occasional intellectual stimulation The Tudors provides is a pleasant surprise. The back-dealing, sinister Cardinal Wolsey (Sam Neill) is a creepy delight to watch, and a painful reminder of the medieval Catholic church as a parallel political system, all the more disgusting for packaging its misdeeds in the will of God. (Also noted: these 16th-century Christians are portrayed, fairly or unfairly, exactly the same way modern ones always are).
But bad as the church is, The Tudors doesn’t play to evangelical Catholic-bashing. Martin Luther, seen from the stained-glassed windows of the English monarchy, was a crackpot heretic who posed a serious threat to Christianity and to the Western world. Which got me thinking: if I were a devout Catholic at this moment in history, would I have objected to the bonfire that consumes Luther’s books in the first season? The reign of Bloody Mary, darkly foreshadowed in the scenes of Henry’s pretty little daughter?
Sure, there’s not much take-away value except for a Cliff’s Notes history of
“The Tudors” airs Sunday evenings at 9 p.m. E.
 |
Topic: Movies & TV, Reviews |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: historical drama, Jonathan Rhys-MEyers, The Tudors |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Soul searching
Someone told me once if you want to know political history, read history books. If you want to know about social history, read historical novels–they have to flesh out the sensory details to keep your interest. That would pertain to this mini-series as well.
I’m glad David did not make the mistake of saying “Cliff Notes.” But is it “Cliff’s Notes” or “Cliffs Notes”?
I have two small quibbles with the review, which overall I thought was good:
1. Henry VIII in his younger days was slender and handsome, according to written accounts. He was known to be athletic, a sportsman and something of a ladies’ man. The famous portrait of him as a stout figure was done when he was around age 50.
2. From the review: (Also noted: these 16th-century Christians are portrayed, fairly or unfairly, exactly the same way modern ones always are).
I have to speak up here, because I get so very tired of this. A few weeks ago, Chas said something similar, how “oh we can’t allow a positive portrayal of a Christian on TV” or some such, and it got me thinking about whether there’s anything to that.
I’ve concluded there isn’t. It is just part of the apparently pathological persecution complex some people seem to have. After thinking on it a bit, inspired by what Chas said, I’ve identified:
1. Saving Grace on TNT. A story of a woman who is struggling her way back to faith. Another character on the show, the one with the strongest and most overt Christian beliefs, is also shown to the be the least judgmental and most forgiving.
2. Firefly, sadly cancelled. While it was primarily about a band of roguish space pirates, it featured a preacher character (Ron Glass) who was shown to always live consistently with his beliefs.
3. Sex and the City, of all things, featured a storyline of a woman trying to seduce a priest — and the priest upholding his vows and turning her away, graciously but firmly and with no hint of compromise.
4. The movie Signs, a religious parable told as a science fiction tale.
5. Boston Legal in a recent episode featured a priest who chose to go to prison rather than violate a matter of moral principle. (He ended up being acquitted, but it was quite clear he would have gone willingly if needed.
There are more but I’m out of time for now … suffice to say, Christians are not “always” portrayed one way or another.
Here’s a list of ten positive Christian movie characters in recent films.
Thanks for the list, SteveG. I start to feel stale hauling out my usual list of The Mission, Man For All Seasons, Babette’s Feast, Cry the Beloved Country, and Pathfinder (explicitly Christological if not Christian). I’ll check some of those out.
I’m also interested in seeing Nanking and War/Dance when I have some time.
do people actually watch this stuff in order to write the reviews? Revised history is very annoying. Especially when you have a test on a certain period, and all you can remember is the movie you saw about it…
Serious George: I just saw Steve Martin on Letterman and was reminded of his movie Leap of Faith, in which his huckster preacher is humbled by witnessing a real miracle. Another very pro-Christian story.
But of course, that can’t be … we know Christians are never shown in a positive light in popular film and TV.
I definitely wasn’t reiterating the whiny evangelical “Hollywood always makes us look bad” complaint, just noting that it’s interesting to note how similar the general caricature is, even when draped in fur and jewels.