selenak

Recently watched: The Tudors, which accomplishes the difficult feat of making Henry VIII and his court very dull indeed. With the exception of Cardinal Wolsey; Sam Neill has by far the best role as smart ambiguous Renaissance man into power, intrigue, and the greater good, though the order of these priorities keeps changing. If this show were about him, it would be ever so much better. Standout moments: the entire scene after he had to bury his ambitions to become Pope one day. "Perhaps you think too highly of me, Thomas," said to Thomas More.

However, alas, most of the show is not about him. Instead, you get to see Johnathan Rhys Myers having lots of sex as young Henry, which presumably should be entertaining - he can smoulder with the best of them, and yes, in Gormenghast I did find him sexy - but really isn't. The clue to on screen eroticism is that you actually care about the characters first, otherwise it's just gymnastics. There is some tentative characterisation in his scenes with Thomas More which I guess are a set up to make it tragic later when the sainted Sir Thomas and he have their fallout, but it's so clumsy that it doesn't work, either. (Henry likes Machiavelli better than More's Utopia, gasp!)

History? Forget about it. This was written by the same scriptwriter who is responsible for Elizabeth, so it's better you switch off your inner historian right from the start. (My personal favourite highlight of absurdity so far is when Charles V. comes a-visiting, in person, because he needs the alliance with England so much. You wish, Henry, you wish. And let's not get even into everyone's ages.)

Mind you: I'm not saying a tv show or a film based on history shouldn't be able to take liberties. Or drop some characters rather than to just name-check them. But what I do demand is that the result in itself creates something interesting and coherent, and The Tudors just doesn't. Pity.