By now, most of the Tudors' historical inaccuracies have been well pointed out; indeed, it's safe to say that the only thing that wasn't changed was the names. Granted, the series isn't good history. But is it good television? Unfortunately, although the Tudors are doubtlessly a visual triumph, they are also a fiasco in terms of pace, dramatic development and characterization that is, the things that matter.
Tackling Henry VIII's life is no walk in the park; the events of his day can be daunting and a fine line has to be trod between the man's public and private life. It has to be said that the first episodes manage to balance the two fairly well (we get a decent examination of the birth of realpolitik) and do a good job of making 500-year old court intrigue actually look interesting.
But not for long. Apparently someone must have thought that audiences would soon tire of politics and that the only way to keep them hooked is to show costumes (for the gals) and boobies (for the guys). I have nothing against either of the two, but when you push everything into the background to make Henry's sexual escapades your sole focus, most of your plot ends up seeming irrelevant, a filler. The Reformation is a good case in point. Of course, we all know that heresy was a serious issue in those days and that Lutheranism posed a very tangible political threat for England. The problem is that the series provides very little internal justification for the persecution of heretics; what we get instead is Henry taking a break from rolling in the grass with Anne Boleyn to pen a couple of pamphlets against Luther and a religious fanatic burning books and people. We are effectively requested to draw on our own knowledge to fill the gaps.
Another pitfall is the total lack of character development something that may very well be the result of poor acting. None of the stormy events of the day (diplomatic crises; wars; epidemics) seem to have any lasting effect on the major characters - Sam Neils' Cardinal Wolsey being the sole exception. Some historical accuracy could have helped here. For example, Henry was 40 when he met Anne Boleyn (20 at the time) and pressed to produce a male heir to secure the continuation of the young Tudor line (he was only the second Tudor on the throne.) Any mention of the above would have added some much needed depth to their story; sadly the series opted for third-rate, sloppy romance that just drags on and on.
All of the above explain why the series suffers so much in terms of pace. The action visibly slows down somewhere in the middle to hit rock bottom during the last part. We see the introduction of several unnecessary sub-plots (Margaret, Thomas Tallis) that don't serve the development of the main storyline at all. The handling of Henry's divorce is also problematic. Considering how many other events were rushed through, was it really necessary to drag this one for so long? And why wasn't the issue resolved at the end? (Probably someone's idea of a cliffhanger ending.) Although the Tudors are great to look at, they are on the whole I found the Tudors uninventive and uninteresting an no amount of costumes or boobies can compensate for that.
Tackling Henry VIII's life is no walk in the park; the events of his day can be daunting and a fine line has to be trod between the man's public and private life. It has to be said that the first episodes manage to balance the two fairly well (we get a decent examination of the birth of realpolitik) and do a good job of making 500-year old court intrigue actually look interesting.
But not for long. Apparently someone must have thought that audiences would soon tire of politics and that the only way to keep them hooked is to show costumes (for the gals) and boobies (for the guys). I have nothing against either of the two, but when you push everything into the background to make Henry's sexual escapades your sole focus, most of your plot ends up seeming irrelevant, a filler. The Reformation is a good case in point. Of course, we all know that heresy was a serious issue in those days and that Lutheranism posed a very tangible political threat for England. The problem is that the series provides very little internal justification for the persecution of heretics; what we get instead is Henry taking a break from rolling in the grass with Anne Boleyn to pen a couple of pamphlets against Luther and a religious fanatic burning books and people. We are effectively requested to draw on our own knowledge to fill the gaps.
Another pitfall is the total lack of character development something that may very well be the result of poor acting. None of the stormy events of the day (diplomatic crises; wars; epidemics) seem to have any lasting effect on the major characters - Sam Neils' Cardinal Wolsey being the sole exception. Some historical accuracy could have helped here. For example, Henry was 40 when he met Anne Boleyn (20 at the time) and pressed to produce a male heir to secure the continuation of the young Tudor line (he was only the second Tudor on the throne.) Any mention of the above would have added some much needed depth to their story; sadly the series opted for third-rate, sloppy romance that just drags on and on.
All of the above explain why the series suffers so much in terms of pace. The action visibly slows down somewhere in the middle to hit rock bottom during the last part. We see the introduction of several unnecessary sub-plots (Margaret, Thomas Tallis) that don't serve the development of the main storyline at all. The handling of Henry's divorce is also problematic. Considering how many other events were rushed through, was it really necessary to drag this one for so long? And why wasn't the issue resolved at the end? (Probably someone's idea of a cliffhanger ending.) Although the Tudors are great to look at, they are on the whole I found the Tudors uninventive and uninteresting an no amount of costumes or boobies can compensate for that.