and be better than the abysmal BBC series, The Tudors.
-
anatja — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 03:00 AM)
The frustrating thing is that we seem to be going backwards. Before selling to an American audience was a factor, they were more accurate.
Please note that in 'The Six wives on Henry VIII' in 1970, fair haired Annette Crosbie played Catherine with red hair, it is probably the best likeness on TV so far, which considering that was 45 years ago, is appalling.
http://images.delcampe.com/img_large/auction/000/068/381/551_001.jpg?v =1
If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature! -
murad23 — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 10:40 AM)
America audiences tend to demand more complexity and accuracy in period pieces.
It is funny you should mention the 1970's "Six Wives" series as it was eviscerated by historians for a lot of absurd and central inaccuracies.
And absurdly 40-year-old Evi hale played a 24-year-old Anne of Cleeves in that. -
anatja — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 12:44 PM)
America audiences tend to demand more complexity and accuracy in period pieces.
If you say so.
And absurdly 40-year-old Evi hale played a 24-year-old Anne of Cleeves in that.
It was by no means perfect but I am referring specifically to the hair issue.
Rarely does Ketherine Parr get portrayed by a woman in her mid 30s (as the real life lady was at her marriage) but usually a woman in her late middle age.
Even the 'sexy' Tudors had the 50 year old Joely Richardson play the role.
If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature! -
martunia21 — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 04:36 PM)
This choice wasn't too bad. Back then 24 was old. A princess or a heiress was expected to wed when she was 12 or even younger. It was to make sure her dowry and extate(s) can't be captured by a rake who kidnaps a lady, seduces/rapes her and impregnates her so she can't be wed by any other candidate chosen by parents and other relatives. A princess could have had a grandchild when she was 30-32. Besides Henry insisted Anne was old, older than her real 24 years, with OLD withered body and so on.
The paternal grandmother of Henry had his father when she was 12 or 13 although 11 is possible, too. The year of her birth isn't certain. So Anne was really old, relatively.
What annoys me more in the last Tudor series that the writers kinda glued together both sisters of Henry and changed too many details from their interesting lives. Compared to reality the Tudor version of Henry's sister was boring. -
martunia21 — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 06:10 PM)
He testified it himself. There was a conversation with some members of his council and doctors and even Cromwell and Henry insisted her body smelled and she had sagging breasts and her belly was like a belly of old woman and had many other complaints. He told it to get annulment so his description was definitely biased but contemporary sources all claim it was what he told. Also in the same conversation he insisted she wasn't a virgin 'cause he was sure of it. Not kidding, it was his reason. He felt her body, he found out her body was a body of old woman, he knew at once she wasn't pure. So God himself prevented him from consummation and it had nothing to do with his impotency.
Try following books:
David Starkey The Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII
Alison Weir The Six Wives of Henry VIII
Antonia Fraser The Six Wives of Henry VIII
all the authors suggest some contemporary sources - so check it if you can find them in your library -
murad23 — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 06:29 AM)
Henry saying whatever he said about Anne of Cleeves is credible? He did not want the marriage. The period is absolutely full of perjury, slander and utterly falsified testimony, with a full out propaganda campaign by shaekespeare, Marlow and a legion of lesser known hacks and flacks
-
martunia21 — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 01:52 PM)
No, it wasn't credible. I was refering more to consistency of historical sources from his period, most of the sources present the same story and arguments. It's not like Boleyn's story - for one generation she was a witch that used the blackest form of magic to seduce poor Henry, maybe even to murder Henry FitzRoy and Catherine but for another generation she was the mother of their beloved Gloriana so they couldn't call her a witch and so on. Her stories changed, had to be changed. The stories about his brief fourth marriage and its end are alike. There was no need to "slander more" or "slander less".
-
martunia21 — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 01:41 PM)
It's OK, there's no need to apologize. I thought you didn't know which exactly conversation I meant, there were several with slightly different statements made by Henry. Well, "statement" in this case means "slander" even if Henry didn't see it that way.
Yes, Mrs Stone was a weird choice and I can't pretend I understand it. -
dizzy-b — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 12:49 PM)
"
. A princess or a heiress was expected to wed when she was 12 or even younger. It was to make sure her dowry and extate(s) can't be captured by a rake who kidnaps a lady, seduces/rapes her and impregnates her so she can't be wed by any other candidate chosen by parents and other relatives. A princess could have had a grandchild when she was 30-32.
Sorry to post something not directly related to the series, but no. Just no. 12 was the minimum legally permissable age for the consummation of marriage as ruled by the Church in the Middle Ages- and it was later moved up to 14. Even then it would have been shocking. Henry Tudor's own mother married when she was 12 and gave birth at 13, and even then people were shocked that her husband did not wait even though he was not old- 28.
Most rincesses married in thier teens, but later marriages were not unknown. 15 or 16 was about the average, give or take a couple of years. The early age of marriage had nought to do with kidnapping, it had to do with fertility, so most noble born girls were married by the time they were able to have babies.
As to kidnapping- it was pretty rare for that to happen to Princess, who would have travelled with a huge entourage of retainers and servants. For goodness sake, Medieval Europe was not the Wild West, with bandits everywhere. There was 'Ravishment'- which basically meant kidnapping instead of what it does now- but it could be used as a was of disguising an elopement as it was often consensual. It could even involve a mother/relative taking control of her own child/kin. -
PaulDowsett — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 05:16 PM)
murad23
America audiences tend to demand more complexity and accuracy in period pieces.
Hollywood has been responsible for some shocking, and even unethical, retellings of history. I really don't think you want to go there! -
murad23 — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 06:34 AM)
You must be kidding. Shakespeare himself is "responsible for some shocking, and even unethical, retelling of history. I really don't think you want to go there!
"
Are yoy saying the British literature, form popular to high brow views on historic events are not often unethical retellings?
Inventing history goes beyond the first written words to oral tradition, from Homer to the Bible, to Suetonius, and certainly to the late Tudor rewrites! -
kmatlack — 10 years ago(April 22, 2015 09:07 AM)
I'm an American and I'm surmising that you were being exceedingly tongue in cheek when you commented that American audiences "tend to demand more complexity and accuracy in period pieces".
Many Americansand I blame our fabulous public school systemwouldn't know a Roundhead from a Cavalier, who Henry VIII was, what the Magna Charta was or anything about English History at all. They barely know anything about American History.
You could have Richard Lionheart driving around in a Lamborghini and they'd be fine with it. -
Sugarminx — 10 years ago(April 28, 2015 03:15 PM)
America audiences tend to demand more complexity and accuracy in period pieces.
Come now, someone's nose is growing
Generally speaking, I get the impression that American audiences don't really care for complexity or accuracy (judging by a LOT of the television shows that emanate from there) so long as all the players have flawless skin, perfect teeth and silicone enhanced bodies.
So put some spice in my sauce, honey in my tea, an ace up my sleeve and a slinkyplanb -
-
Sugarminx — 10 years ago(June 29, 2015 05:17 PM)
As I said: "generally speaking".
There are some
very
good shows coming out of the US. But I still believe the vast majority (and let's face it, the US produces an
enormous
amount of television), tends to prove my theory that it's mostly about appearance and not substance.
So put some spice in my sauce, honey in my tea, an ace up my sleeve and a slinkyplanb -
wsucougarl1 — 10 years ago(February 10, 2016 10:48 PM)
Paul Dowsett; A very astute observation. American TV over the last few years has given us some of the very best, intelligent and well acted fare that I have ever seen. just to list a few, in addition to "the Wire", I would add "Deadwood"; "Rome"; The "Fargo" series, (both one and two); and of course "Wolf Hall", to cite a few examples.
These days TV is giving us consistently more high quality entertainments than are being offered on the big screen. Motion pictures, With few exceptions, contain CGI filled adventures featuring more explosions, car chases, and zero character development.
Now, when attending your friendly neighborhood multiplex, it's buy a ticket and switch off brain before viewing. Sadly, It wasn't always this way. -
KatharineFanatic — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 02:08 PM)
I don't know that it is entirely fair to blame the Americans for the dumbing down of British television we did not ask for them to be dumbed down and have a long history of absorbing and appreciating British cinema regardless (way back when they were airing "I Claudius" and "Upstairs Downstairs" it was quite popular in the US) so it must have been voluntary on the British end of things, under the absurd assumption that we
can't
follow along!
The only real complaint I have about British cinema, old or new, is that their sound mixing is dreadfully off; I have to turn it way up to hear the voices and then down again when the music blasts me off my seat.
