The Tudors and an election...

[fajrdrako]

commodorified and auriaephiala came over this evening, and instead of watching Torchwood again we watched the first three episodes of The Tudors, which they have started to show on the CBC. I did note that they had a trailer for Torchwood which showed part of the 'estrogen' speech from Captain Jack - which they actually cut from the show. I shake my head sadly.

Anyway, The Tudors. We'd been hearing absolutely terrible things about this on the Dunnett lists, and other lists too. And I didn't believe it could possibly be as bad as they said. And in my opinion, it isn't. It's fun. It has a lot going for it, including especially Jonathan Rhys Myers, who is, as always, quite magnificent. But he's a far better actor than they're letting him show. The dialogue is so full of double entendres that I was soon hearing implications in lines that surely, Surely weren't supposed to have any.

Plot? There is no plot, except the general outlines of the history of Henry VIII's time, and no one is particularly sympathetic except Thomas More. There's no structure, and I was wishing that everyone had narrative labels over their heads explaining their names. commodorified said that if we, who know the history, are having trouble following, how are other people coping? Much better, I would imagine: they aren't expecting to know, they can just let the story unfold. I don't know a lot about Henry VIII's reign, but I find myself generally able to name people before they are identified - Wyatt, Wolsey - okay, it's easy, he's the only Cardinal; and did Cardinals wear their red gowns every day? - Brandon and the various Dukes.

The history isn't so bad. I've seen far worse - in just about every movie about Elizabeth I, for example, or the appalling Kingdom of Heaven.

I don't generally like Sam Neil but he's wonderful as the Richelieu-like plotter, Cardinal Wolsey. Natalie Dormer is sort of creepy as Anne Bolyen - is she supposed to be, or is that just my viewpoint? Maria Doyle Kennedy gives a rather good performance as Queen Catherine.

It's a show that invites commentary, and auriaephiala promised to put some of our comments in her LJ. There was a moment I liked when Henry VIII said to Thomas More, on promising him a knighthood, "You aren't a saint," and we chorused, "Yet!" in unison.

The costume design by Joan Bergin is brilliant. It bothers commodorified that Henry VIII wears his boots in inappropriate places; but I figure that if he thinks he looks good in them, no one's going to tell him to take them off.

From time to time we checked on the provincial election results, with a certain amount of cheering and wailing. I wanted to see the NDP do well and the Conservatives do badly; it's most satisfying to see that the Conservative candidate in my riding, who is a twit, is doing terribly badly. It looks as if our MPP in Ottawa Centre will be the Liberal, Yasir Naqvi; though Will Murray (NDP) could still catch up. I would prefer to see the NDP get more seats provincially, but Naqvi is fine in everything but his party allegiance. We've done a lot worse.

Let's hope this brings an end to the nonsense about religious schools.

Comments

[jkluge.livejournal.com]

My fingers are crossed for you on the political front. May your progressive candidate triumph!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

The candidates I favour have been doing better since I moved to centretown, which tends to favour the NDP. (When I lived in the west end, no one I voted for ever got anywhere.) It could have been worse, and it could have been better. I was sorry the referendum to amend the system of voting didn't pass, but I think most people thought the system wasn't broken and might as well be left as it is.

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

Yup, I really hope that no one will ever think of expanding religious school funding again. As for the results, it sure shows why the referendum should not have lost. The difference between the popular vote and the seat percentages is striking, particularly for the Greens and NDP.

Re the Tudors: Love your comments. More comments at http://auriaephiala.livejournal.com/27830.html . commodorified promised to transcribe & annotate my notes of our comments (I think I ended up with 11 pages); I hope the result will be fun.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

The difference between the popular vote and the seat percentages is striking, particularly for the Greens and NDP.

Absolutely! Clear evidence.

I think I ended up with 11 pages

Eee! What fun.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

Well I for one really love the Tudors. It's just good fun, and a lot of my friends who are not into history at all enjoy it oodles. It's pretty to watch. I didn't expect a lot from it though, just some prettiness and maybe a tad of history; and Peter O'Toole plays the Pope next season!

It's not as exciting as I had hoped for, and I wish they wouldn't wait so long between seasons, but I set aside time to watch it and look forward to discussing w/ friends.

I'm sorry to hear that Dunnett lists are not liking it. I can see why, if they judge it by historical accuracy, but I don't always think that's what makes entertainment.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I for one really love the Tudors.

So glad to her you say it!

It's pretty to watch.

I certainly think so!

Peter O'Toole plays the Pope next season!

Yay!

I'm sorry to hear that Dunnett lists are not liking it. I can see why, if they judge it by historical accuracy,

But I've seen far worse history on TV. I'm not sure what their problem is; I've seen worse writing and characterization, too. Perhaps they are somewhat put off by the sex scenes? (I never understand that, myself, since I like the sex scenes, but some people don't.) Perhaps it's that, as you say, it doesn't move fast and isn't terrifically exciting in terms of action.

I'm quite happy to find it watchable!

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

Yay! Looking forward to talking Tudors with you. :D

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes indeed! Okay, a few comments:

(1) I like this version of Thomas More better than any version I've previously seen, I think

(2) Any idea how old Henry is supposed to be? I can't quite pin down a year; early 1520s? Mary isn't ten yet, as far as I can see.

(3) What do you think of Anne Boleyn? I find her creepy.

(4) It's the first time I've ever liked Sam Neil. I find that I feel sorry for his Wolsey.

have you seen the whole series? Is it currently on in the States?

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

1) I LOVE this version of More.

2) I'm not sure, I just think 'young' and I'm not sure how far they are going to take him in the series.

3) She's ok. I really prefer Katherine thus far in the series and feel much more for her. I think I'll get more of a feel for Anne in season two, where she's the focus. I do find her father practically prostituting his daughters around pretty creepy!

4) I like Neil quite a lot as the Cardinal, and yes I feel sorry for him too. Neil was ok as Charles II in Restoration but that's the only other reference I really have for him. I won't say more or else I will spoil the end of season one for you.

I have seen all of season one, which is all that's out. It airs on Showtime in the States. It starts up with season two in February, I think.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

I got an email of a comment from aral_vorkosigan but I don't see the comment here and it won't let me reply by email. :(

Anyway,just wanted to respond to it by saying there are ten episodes in season one.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Oops, sorry, I replied from the wrong address. Hate doing that... but find it sometimes so difficult to remember!

Ten episodes. So I've nine to go. And then waiting till February.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I can see why, if they judge it by historical accuracy, but I don't always think that's what makes entertainment.

I don't think there's any excuse for it, if you're using real characters under their real names. The 1970 BBC serial with Keith Michell (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066714/) was superb, and aimed far more at accuracy. It was also very entertaining. I loved it as a kid!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I am, as you know, in favour of accuracy. But there are balances; ideally we should get accuracy and entertainment together. They often seem to feel the need to fudge the one or the other for reasons I seldom understand. Why not give Anne Boleyn character? Why not get the names right?

I am impressed by the quality of the costuming.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

But the costumes aren't accurate.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Some are, some aren't. I liked the prettier ones. And the stranger ones.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

You've only seen three episodes. Thomas More becomes unsympathetic, which delights me, and Henry becomes more complex. (But just as beautiful.)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I'm delighted to hear it, on both counts! Can hardly wait to see more. (Er, I mean, more, as well as More.)

[star-momma.livejournal.com]

The Tudors is on my list of "things to see". It has JRM - it can't be ALL bad after all. And you forget that Kingdom of Heaven did have one redeeming quality. No, not Orlando Bloom (he's pretty, but I can watch him be pretty in more interesting movies). Alexander Sidding! Yum! See icon for reference. heh

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

It has JRM - it can't be ALL bad after all.

That is a lot of the appeal. And he gets to wear gorgeous stuff, and to take it off.

Kingdom of Heaven did have one redeeming quality. No, not Orlando Bloom (he's pretty, but I can watch him be pretty in more interesting movies). Alexander Sidding!

It had two redeeming qualities - and no, not Orlando Bloom, poor boy! - it had both Alexander Siddig and Jeremy Irons. Both sadly wasted in their roles, but it was wonderful to see them.

Nice icon.

[star-momma.livejournal.com]

Good point, I'd forgotten Jeremy Irons. He also has the distinction of being the only thing worth seeing in Eragon aside from the cute baby dragon.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Too bad the dragon wasn't so cute (or so interesting) when she grew up.

[star-momma.livejournal.com]

Pretty much! That movie was a bust on all levels, unfortunately.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Sadly, it was a morass of cliches.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Jeremy. Ah yes. If only they'd given him his real character.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't have been difficult to give him more than we saw!

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I read the Radio Times blurb on The Tudors and saw the trailers. That was enough. Why show this MTV-does-pseudo-history tat when there's the wonderful Keith Michell series in the archives (and on DVD)? The show's creator Michael Hirst is on record as saying:

"This series was commissioned by an American channel and in the States there's no immediate audience for a historical period drama. they dismiss these kinds of shows as 'men in tights'. The only way this was going to work was if we made it resonate with contemporary issues."

Bollocks. Utter bollocks. If they want to make up or distort so much of the story and characters, why not make all the characters fictional and set it in an imaginary Renaissance kingdom?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Contemporary issues? They have to be kidding. Since when is a king who wants a divorce and a son, a contemporary issue?

Idiots.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

He was billing it as "man with older wife falls in love with younger woman" – completely ignoring the fact this only mattered because he needed a male heir; that his father was a usurper, so the future of the dynasty was crucial…

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Obviously there wasn't a lot of real intelligence behind the concept!