Categorised | TV reviews

Review: The Tudors

Posted on April 9, 2007 | 4 comments |

The Tudors

In the US: Showtime, Sundays, 10pm ET/PT
In the UK: Not yet acquired for some reason

There are all sorts of debates in historical circles about what constitutes history. While most historical education dwells on dates of battles, treaties, coronations and so on, is that really what history is about? Does that undervalue women's contributions, for instance? What about the history of small things like the food we eat or how we actually lived?

TV networks such as BBC, HBO and Showtime have all decided that a very important part of history is being overlooked. With shows such as Rome and now The Tudors, they've attempted to redress the balance. They want us to remember the history of shagging.

The Plot
The Tudors focuses on the life and romances of the young King Henry VIII. The ten one-hour episodes take a look at the often overlooked early political relationships as well as Henry's trysts with such notable women as Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. The series is shot on location in Ireland. Michael Hirst (Elizabeth) is the series creator, writer, and executive producer.

Is it any good?
The Tudors
stars Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry VIII. Yes, you know, portly old Henry VIII, composer of Greensleeves, mass wife divorcer and murderer, establisher of the Church of England, et al.

Except this is young Henry and his early exploits, for which we should read "attempts to establish pan-European peace and shag a lot". Myers, whose Irish accent can't stand being hidden for more than a minute so re-emerges at the slightest prompting, depicts him as a lover, intellectual and Real Tennis player, who likes to shag a lot.

Did I mention there's a lot of shagging?

Actually, there's not much shagging. I'm just messing. It just seems like it when all you're waiting for is the founding of Trinity College, Cambridge, and the dissolution of the monasteries.

I have no idea just how historically authentic The Tudors is, thanks to a GCSE History education that bypassed the years between 1066 and 1720, although 85% is apparently the figure to aim for. Certainly, it makes the whole Tudor period seem a whole lot more interesting than constant Catholic burning and you have to admire a show that kills off Sean Pertwee in the first few minutes. It also has a great cast, with a whole host of heavyweights like Sam Neill (Cardinal Wolsey) and Jeremy Northam (Sir Thomas More) wading in to bring gravitas to proceedings.

As popular history goes, this is one of the better shows, but I suspect it'll have more than a few historians crying into their giant pillows. One to watch, even if a Simon Schama hand-wave show feels too much like book learning.

Here's a YouTube trailer that gives a great big explanation of the show and has clips. Very interesting.

Cast
Jonathan Rhys Meyers (King Henry VIII)
Sam Neill (Cardinal Thomas Wolsey)
Callum Blue (Knivert)
Henry Cavill (Charles Brandon)
Henry Czerny (Norfolk)
Natalie Dormer (Anne Boleyn)
Maria Doyle Kennedy (Queen Katherine)
Jeremy Northam (Sir Thomas More)

Updates and related entries

May 8, 2007: My wife's comments on the historical authenticity of The Tudors and the usefulness of How The Edwardians Spoke.

4 Comments For This Post

  1. Rullsenberg wrote:
    April 10, 2007 | Reply

    Has this got bought up for the UK?

    I actually don't mind drama histories: as much as I love Simon Schama, there is something about his style and manner of presentation that presses all the cliches of presenting history (social, political, cultural) even if he does have a slightly better grasp of historical detail.

    Interesting is the right word, even if the shagging does feel a little bit over-done! Mind, what's the point of getting a fit young lad like JRM in if you ain't gonna use his physique as a selling point?

  2. Jamie wrote:
    April 10, 2007 | Reply

    Kudos for eschewing such obvious fare with a gargantuan Henry VIII and cod Shakespearean dialogue, will have to wait and see if it is actually any good.

    Wasn't tennis invented in the 19th century?

  3. Stu Nathan wrote:
    April 10, 2007 | Reply

    Lawn tennis was. 'Real tennis' is an indoor game, looks like a cross between tennis and squash, and it was already old when Henry started playing it.

    Only about five people play it today. One of them finds it very hard to get a game.

  4. Rob Buckley replied to Rullsenberg's comment:
    April 10, 2007 | Reply

    "Has this got bought up for the UK?"

    Not yet, but I suspect someone will at the April screenings in LA.

Leave a comment

Your comment
You can use HTML tags for style. To hide a spoiler, put <span class="spoiler"> before it and </span> after it.


Comment preview

Subscribe to comments
You can subscribe by email to any further comments on this entry by checking the box below.

Featured Articles

Lost in Austen 1x1

Lost in a good book

Read the article

Asides

  •  BBC3's Most Annoying Couples: People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

  •  Poor Kelly Brook. She nearly cried on Jonathan Ross. Bad Jonathan!

  • Today's celebrity spot was Andrew Davies, spotted entering Golden Square in London

RSS feed

Amazon goodies

  • Sisters of the Flame
  • The Cazalets
  • Remember Me (Sapphire and Steel)
  • Love Actually
  • Gideon's Daughter
  • Mine All Mine
  • To The Ends Of The Earth
  • Porterhouse Blue
  • The Andromeda Strain - The Mini-Series
  • Gods Behaving Badly

See all audio play or DVD reviews

Shrine to the blog gods

  • Charlie Brooker
  • Stewart Lee
  • Chris Morris
  • Douglas Camfield
  • Graeme Harper
  • Joanna Page
  • David Tennant
  • Verity Lambert

Find out more about the blog gods