…twenty-five years ago, Friend (a.k.a. Mary Heather) made her debut into this world, bringing with her much loveliness, lots of pink, even more yarn, knitted items and cosmetics and a keen love for Hello Kitty and lambs. Indeed, the world is a better place because of this wondrous event a quarter century ago. So, pop over to her blog and wish her a happy HAPPY birthday!
Speaking of history, I saw the first two episodes of The Tudors last night on The 101.
Even if I got Showtime, I’m not sure I would watch after seeing that.
I ask you, why is that time-period so glamorized? It annoys me.
Even more than the time-period being glamorized annoys me, it annoys me that Henry VIII is always glamorized as he is. By today’s standards, Henry was a fat, gross, ugly, dirty old man. But, by that day’s standards, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers – who plays a far too hot and glamorous Henry – would have been nothing special at all. But, in that day and age, as we know, how a man looked had very little at all to do with his desirability; only his rank mattered. Of course, the King was as high as one could go so he, despite his being fairly grotesque, was desirable indeed. And, if Jonathan Rhys-Meyers had indeed been alive in that day and had only been a stable-hand, his looks wouldn’t have done anything for him. He would STILL have been a stable-hand.
Isn’t it amazing how things change so much over time?
But, I digress.
In watching just two episodes of The Tudors last night, I noticed several glaring historical inaccuracies. I won’t go into them here in case others of you plan to watch it but notice, if you will, what you can catch that they have misconstrued. To be clear, there is a lot of room for interpretation of that time period. Sure, we know some key dates and some pieces of information for sure, from documentation that has survived over the years. However, the details of everyday life in that court is subject to a lot of interpretation. I know that. That is what historical fiction is all about. But, to my picky little mind, it would be best to keep the things that we know for sure in tact and only creatively interpret that which isn’t known for sure. There is a lot that isn’t known for sure so it still leaves room for MUCH creative license. To me, it does a great injustice to that period, the facts, the documentation, those people to not represent that which we know in an accurate manner. If those facts are strayed from too greatly, it turns into pure fiction, of which we have plenty already.
It would be nice to know what all of these people really looked like – Bessie Blount, for example. I’m sure that she was pretty, to have caught Henry’s eye even for a bit, but, again, what was pretty in that day? I was glad to see that they didn’t get a beauty to play Anne Boleyn. From what we know of her, for that day’s standards, she was not a beauty. She carried herself well and exhibited confidence, clever intelligence and poise, which was her beauty mark, as it seems. Natalie Dormer certainly isn’t a beauty so that, in a way, is accurate. However, from what little I saw of Natalie Dormer as Anne last night, I’m not convinced of the performance. To me, Anne should have more controlled poise and less smirkiness. Yes, I believe that she had the capacity to do whatever she could to rise to the top – and she DID that – yet, I don’t believe she did it by exuding a smug and pretentious self-glorification at every turn of her head.
But, even if I’m not crazy about this adaptation, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is cute, isn’t he? Indeed.
Happy day to everyone and HAPPY BIRTHDAY to Friend!