Tudors season01

In a day where we are worried about the mythologies of Lost or Supernatural; here is a brave venture where we all know the story and the its implications. If history tells what happened, only the artist can capture how it happened. This story does that quite efficiently. Michael Hirst wrote this for Showtime about five years ago and after four seasons, the story came to a close. One decision by the creative makes this so much different from other films/TV programs of this genre; it is the focus on drama even at the cost of history. This is a genius move, I would say, for it grasps the fundamental purpose of history. History has no obligations except for being there. It is recorded from manuscripts, dates and names of people. However, the motivation behind history is beyond human understanding. Even documents where people are seen exposing their motives behind their actions have to be treated with caution; for every action is a performance. What gives that just because a person is dead, (s)he is speaking the truth?

The first thing that captivates the audience while watching this program is the music. The haunting quality of music chosen from contemporary styles lingers on as a character of its own. The importance of the performative in the court of Henry VIII is brought to attention with many of the significant actions developing over ballroom sequences. Perhaps the most poignant use of this feature is felt in the season finale, drawing a parallel between the fallen Wolsey and a farce at the court. The drama at "play" builds itself to moments, rather than forcing moments to appear because it is said so in history. The historical awareness balanced by her love for her husband, in Queen Catherine makes for an image that will not fade quickly.

Some criticize this of reducing historical moments to personal and petty decisions; but that is where this series is so overwhelmingly real. As someone who cannot tolerate the obnoxious views of those who claim to know the "authentic" history, I welcome this method of story-telling. Let us face it, NOBODY from this generation can get even close to understanding what happened or how it happened in a different generation. The passages of time is so completely self-sustained that contemplating history with however much or little "facts" is equally speculative. Therefore, it comes as a breath of fresh air that instead of wooden characters who speak on behalf of history, these are living, breathing personalities that deal with their personal problems; for whom their actions becoming history is merely an afterthought. Not all are aware of their historical image (a point raised in the show more than just once) and those who are aware, are not always able to use their awareness to step outside their problems of reality. Many characters like the Cardinal Wolsey, Sir Thomas Moore and the King Henry VIII himself, are willing to go to any extreme to create a specific image for history (in the story) which could be as equally real as any other "authentic" version; and it should be appreciated that the writer tries to hold a prism to the everyday reality behind historical tapestries. The inaccuracies have been criticized as well; but the writer has been given a job of entertaining people with a story, not a lesson in history and therefore that can be excused. What I do hold against their method of programming is their insistence of showing two pairs of breasts every week, almost simply to adhere to the "edgy" tag they have gained. I find it silly and forced; for it was edgier to see a moment where Wolsey prays to God without remorse in his voice and goes on to kill himself rather than to see a woman who is simultaneously flat-chested and with sagging boobs giving a fake orgasm.

The casting, it must be noted, is excellent. The pick of the actors is definitely Jonathan Rhys Myers as King Henry VIII. At times childish, at times cruel; Myers' portrayal is that of a tough lord who will go to any length to hold on to his powers. One feels at times that Anne Boleyn was just an excuse for the historical inevitable. One gets the feelingt that even without her, someone like Henry VIII would not have been content to having a cap on his powers. I have seen Myers in Matchpoint as a lucky fool and in August Rush as an impulsive Irishman. But here, as Henry VIII, he opens up so many avenues for himself as an excellent actor. Sam Neil as the Cardinal Wolsey is the other "big name" actor who lends dignity and intrigue to this power-hungry, machiavellian, but at times practically "right" elderly gentleman. The actor playing Anne Boleyn does it well enough to make us hate her. While the actor playing the Queen Catherine is grace personified. All the bits and peices actors do an adequate job; particularly the cowardly fierce trinity of Suffolk, Norfolk and Boleyn. The costumes and the lighting have always shown the actors in good light while the top-notch camera work and seamless editing gives the narrative a racing beat. Since a majority of the action happens in court, there is not much scope for the historical details but they serve an adequate backdrop. The computer-graphics generated castles look very poor though.

Overall, this is a must-watch for anyone who likes a serious political drama; even if one is not particularly historically inclined. On a scale of ten, I would give the writing 8 points; the production itself gets a healthy 7 points.