MovieChat Forums > The Tudors (2007) Discussion > Historical veracity?

Historical veracity?

posted 9 years ago by puirt-a-beul
11 replies | jump to latest

I really enjoy many aspects of this show -- the production, the dialogue, the performances for the most part -- but I find it a bit frustrating that what is essentially an historical drama takes so many liberties with both the details of the history and the attitudes and intentions of so many of the characters.

True, it dosn't claim to be scrupulously factual -- despite the opening line of the titles, which implies this show portrays the "real" story -- but does that really let it off the hook? And I realise I'm free to read books on the period by actual historians, but that seems a long way round the bases -- isn't it fair enough to want to be entertained, to want the history to come to "life", and still to get an accurate representation?

I'm personally bothered (oh dear, where did that soapbox come from?!) by the position we seem to have (collectively) arrived at in regards to TV and films, where we apparently see "entertainment" and "fact" as incompatible, two things that can't occupy the same space at the same moment -- one of the most truly brain-dead phrases that appears on the Internet of late is the sadly oft-repeated, "It's enterTAINment, not a documentary!", as if storytelling really can't be both. (As Werner Erhard once said, "Argue for your limitations, and they're yours!")

I imagine Michael Hirst wanted to make this show as impactful as possible, and so felt altering history was justifiable in the service of drama. But I can't help wondering: couldn't he have had his high drama and still held to historical fact, both in the events and in the attitudes and behaviours of those caught up in them? For my own interest, I can't help wishing that he had.

Am I alone in this?

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] scndform 9 years ago

You are not alone. History according to Hollywood is something that has driven me crazy for years- and unfortunately, there are way too many people who believe that if they see something in a historical film this is the way the historical event played out.

[–] eyeguy72 9 years ago

Either you were entertained or you weren't.

Nothing else matters.

I loved it.

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

i think that the real story of the tudors is exciting enough, without making up things. i don't really see the point of some of the things they changed - the age of henry's illegitimate son for example, or which kings his sisters married, i can't see that changing those things added anything to the story. i can see though why they did not have henry becomign enormously fat as he did in real life - clearly they wanted their star to remain attrqctive. I am sure Henry himself would have approved of that.

[–] eyeguy72 9 years ago

i don't really see the point of some of the things they changed - the age of henry's illegitimate son for example, or which kings his sisters married, i can't see that changing those things added anything to the story.

The Tudors was originally only going to be a 2 season series, culminating with the death of Anne Boleyn. Luckily for us, people responded well and Showtime ordered 2 more seasons.

Michael Hirst killed off the little bastard in season 1 to increase our sympathy towards King Henry and it also added a bit of drama when not much else was really happening at that point in Henry's reign.

But typically changes of this type are done for pacing purposes.

[–] njgill 9 years ago

Michael Hirst killed off the little bastard in season 1

thereby missing the opportunity to use Henry's real-life suggestion to marry him to Mary. Incest is always a big draw!

[–] eyeguy72 9 years ago

Makes me feel queasy.

[–] njgill 9 years ago

Not enough to stop you from watching, I'll bet.

[–] eyeguy72 9 years ago

True! I'd know they were just actors after all. Plus... Sarah Bolger! 💓

[–] KatharineFanatic 9 years ago

You're not alone.

The real story is often so much more complex and interesting than what was presented on screen that it's hard to see why you would make stuff up.

And yet... as a historical novelist, I know how hard it can be to untangle complicated court politics into a singular narrative for modern audiences to follow. It's EASIER just to... make stuff up. It really is. Get a broad view, and fill in the blanks with your own stuff.

That's why so many writers bypass actual accuracy for invention. It takes a lot more research and mental processing on their part to be accurate.

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

Thank you indeed for that reply, KF. It makes sense when you put it that way.

I can readily grasp the idea that a fictional storyline can simplify complex issues, making them easier for an audience to grasp and more economical in terms of screen time and exposition; if a show manages to do that, and still stay true to the characters' real-life natures and intentions, then more power to it. But many shows I've seen start getting a bit -- I don't know, drunk on power, perhaps? -- and start treating it as if they're actually improving on history, and I think I'd rather they didn't. I don't know enough to know if that happened with The Tudors -- though I know enough to know there are certainly some variations on the original events -- but that was why I asked my original question.

Anyway. You've made me think, and that's always good. ;-)

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] Soodinum 9 years ago

It's entertainment loosely based on history. Accept that, and all the threads on this issue can stop.