That film

I had to watch it (this evening, recorded on Sunday) to see how the historical context was portrayed.

1) Sadly, it was assumed that EVERYONE Henry accused of treason was assumed guilty by the producers (except Anne Boleyn). Thus young Buckingham was shown plotting for the throne. Surely not, if he had learnt anything from his father's fate. Was this execution not just a part of the Tudor genocide of Plantagenets?

2) Was Ray Winstone any good? His accent was reminiscent of Sid James in the same role. Of course, he was born after Bosworth in England but sounded a little too common. Keith Michell is an Aussie but sounded right.

3) Stewart White (presenter of BBC Look East) introduced a feature on Wolsey (from Ipswich) on Monday night and ended "... and the film is in two parts, like many of the cast."

4) Helena Bonham Carter. Slightly too old for Anne? Ten years ago she played Lady Jane Grey - an actress barely five feet tall WITH a head?

5) How about a musical version (including "I'm 'Enery the Eighth, I am" and D.I.V.O.R.C.E.)

6) The "stingy old git" (as Brunhild calls him) died in the first scene, saying "You must secure the throne and have a male heir"

Anyway, I'm intrigued and will watch part two. What did everyone else think???

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> I had to watch it (this evening, recorded on Sunday) to see how the
historical context was portrayed.
>
> 1) Sadly, it was assumed that EVERYONE Henry accused of treason was
assumed guilty by the producers (except Anne Boleyn). Thus young
Buckingham was shown plotting for the throne. Surely not, if he had
learnt anything from his father's fate. Was this execution not just a
part of the Tudor genocide of Plantagenets?
>
> 2) Was Ray Winstone any good? His accent was reminiscent of Sid
James in the same role. Of course, he was born after Bosworth in
England but sounded a little too common. Keith Michell is an Aussie
but sounded right.
>
> 3) Stewart White (presenter of BBC Look East) introduced a feature
on Wolsey (from Ipswich) on Monday night and ended "... and the film
is in two parts, like many of the cast."
>
> 4) Helena Bonham Carter. Slightly too old for Anne? Ten years ago
she played Lady Jane Grey - an actress barely five feet tall WITH a
head?
>
> 5) How about a musical version (including "I'm 'Enery the Eighth, I
am" and D.I.V.O.R.C.E.)
>
> 6) The "stingy old git" (as Brunhild calls him) died in the first
scene, saying "You must secure the throne and have a male heir"
>
> Anyway, I'm intrigued and will watch part two. What did everyone
else think???
>
>
>

In its favour I thought it was very entertaining, and it did at least
portray the insecurity of the Tudor regime. I'd been trying to
explain to my husband during the interval of 'That Play' why
Shakespeare would have needed to protray Richard in an unfairly
negative light or why the Tudor sources available to him would have
been biased. He was apt to take it all at face value. I think now
he's seen their lack of claim, fear of Plantagenets, inablitit to
produce male heirs, and the questionable circumstances of Elizabeth's
conception, he's taken the point.

Against. Well, I had a job recognising that big fat lump as Henry VII
(had a job recognising a lot of people, actually). And it was a pity
they made the 'Plantagenets' look such inveterate ungrateful plotters.

Yes, I also foud the accent, and demeanour, of Henry VIII, a bit
Eastenders. And I wasn't convinced by Katherine of Aragon having to
undo her own stays (and at the back, too).

And weren't Anne Boleyn & Jane Seymour looking just a little bit un-
Tudor. Neither allowed to have proper head-gear, hair all plumped up,
Helena Bonham-Carter had even been at the curling tongs to give
herself little wisps of ringlet around the face. And of course Helena
was very visibly pregnant right the way through.
To do her justice, yes she is too old for Anne Boleyn, but not as
much too old as Dorothy Tutin was to Keith Michell's Henry.
And my Radio Times said I'd cry at Henry's wooing of Anne, it was so
tender, but it wasn't and I didn't.
Hard old me.

And some of the dialogue was as daft as anything Hollywood ever
managed, eg:
"Go back to your estates, gather your armies and meet me outside
London in three days."
Hmmm.

But I'll be watching Part 2.

Marie

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> I had to watch it (this evening, recorded on Sunday) to see how
the historical context was portrayed.
>
> 1) Sadly, it was assumed that EVERYONE Henry accused of treason
was assumed guilty by the producers (except Anne Boleyn). Thus young
Buckingham was shown plotting for the throne. Surely not, if he had
learnt anything from his father's fate. Was this execution not just
a part of the Tudor genocide of Plantagenets?

Oh, the bliss of dramatic licence.......
>
> 2) Was Ray Winstone any good? His accent was reminiscent of Sid
James in the same role. Of course, he was born after Bosworth in
England but sounded a little too common. Keith Michell is an Aussie
but sounded right.

There were times when I actually thought he was a northerner doing a
London accent, he was certainly only suited to the role for looks
but nothing else!
>
> 3) Stewart White (presenter of BBC Look East) introduced a feature
on Wolsey (from Ipswich) on Monday night and ended "... and the film
is in two parts, like many of the cast."

Seems fair enough!
>
> 4) Helena Bonham Carter. Slightly too old for Anne? Ten years ago
she played Lady Jane Grey - an actress barely five feet tall WITH a
head?

Dreadfully miscast. Also played her cool and calm and not at all
fiery and undignified, and 3 months pregnant did show! NO attempt to
achieve any kind of resemblance to Anne in actress choice. Dorothy
Tutin was perfect!
>
> 5) How about a musical version (including "I'm 'Enery the Eighth,
I am" and D.I.V.O.R.C.E.)

Oh please...spare us! ;-(
>
> 6) The "stingy old git" (as Brunhild calls him) died in the first
scene, saying "You must secure the throne and have a male heir"

No attempt to cast an actor who resembled the aforementioned git
made here, either.
>
> Anyway, I'm intrigued and will watch part two. What did everyone
else think???

I confess I have one reason only to suffer part 2...yes, girls, you
guessed it....Sean Bean buckling his swash.....oh I have come over
all hot.... ;-)
B
>
>
>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen LARK"
> <smlark@i...> wrote:
> > I had to watch it (this evening, recorded on Sunday) to see how
the
> historical context was portrayed.
> >
> > 1) Sadly, it was assumed that EVERYONE Henry accused of treason
was
> assumed guilty by the producers (except Anne Boleyn). Thus young
> Buckingham was shown plotting for the throne. Surely not, if he
had
> learnt anything from his father's fate. Was this execution not
just a
> part of the Tudor genocide of Plantagenets?
> >
> > 2) Was Ray Winstone any good? His accent was reminiscent of Sid
> James in the same role. Of course, he was born after Bosworth in
> England but sounded a little too common. Keith Michell is an
Aussie
> but sounded right.
> >
> > 3) Stewart White (presenter of BBC Look East) introduced a
feature
> on Wolsey (from Ipswich) on Monday night and ended "... and the
film
> is in two parts, like many of the cast."
> >
> > 4) Helena Bonham Carter. Slightly too old for Anne? Ten years
ago
> she played Lady Jane Grey - an actress barely five feet tall WITH
a
> head?
> >
> > 5) How about a musical version (including "I'm 'Enery the
Eighth, I
> am" and D.I.V.O.R.C.E.)
> >
> > 6) The "stingy old git" (as Brunhild calls him) died in the
first
> scene, saying "You must secure the throne and have a male heir"
> >
> > Anyway, I'm intrigued and will watch part two. What did everyone
> else think???
> >
> >
> >
>
> In its favour I thought it was very entertaining, and it did at
least
> portray the insecurity of the Tudor regime. I'd been trying to
> explain to my husband during the interval of 'That Play' why
> Shakespeare would have needed to protray Richard in an unfairly
> negative light or why the Tudor sources available to him would
have
> been biased. He was apt to take it all at face value. I think now
> he's seen their lack of claim, fear of Plantagenets, inablitit to
> produce male heirs, and the questionable circumstances of
Elizabeth's
> conception, he's taken the point.
>
> Against. Well, I had a job recognising that big fat lump as Henry
VII
> (had a job recognising a lot of people, actually). And it was a
pity
> they made the 'Plantagenets' look such inveterate ungrateful
plotters.
>
> Yes, I also foud the accent, and demeanour, of Henry VIII, a bit
> Eastenders. And I wasn't convinced by Katherine of Aragon having
to
> undo her own stays (and at the back, too).
>
> And weren't Anne Boleyn & Jane Seymour looking just a little bit
un-
> Tudor. Neither allowed to have proper head-gear, hair all plumped
up,
> Helena Bonham-Carter had even been at the curling tongs to give
> herself little wisps of ringlet around the face. And of course
Helena
> was very visibly pregnant right the way through.
> To do her justice, yes she is too old for Anne Boleyn, but not as
> much too old as Dorothy Tutin was to Keith Michell's Henry.
> And my Radio Times said I'd cry at Henry's wooing of Anne, it was
so
> tender, but it wasn't and I didn't.
> Hard old me.
>
> And some of the dialogue was as daft as anything Hollywood ever
> managed, eg:
> "Go back to your estates, gather your armies and meet me outside
> London in three days."
> Hmmm.
>
> But I'll be watching Part 2.
>
> Marie

Did anyone notice who played the 3rd Duchess of Norfolk this week (aunt of "Queen sacrifice" Katharine Howard)? Marsha Fitzalan, whose father was the 17th Duke of Norfolk.