Morning:
13°c
An awesome and ridiculous film that leaves you thrilled beyond the point of your natural endurance
London faces a wave of bus and Tube strikes that could cause chaos for millions of passengers as unions walkout over pay and conditions
More...
Henry VIII: The glaring errors in BBC's sexed-up, dumbed-down Tudors
Last updated at 09:23am on 24.10.07The BBC was accused yesterday of "Americanising" and "sexing up" the past with its much-hyped drama, The Tudors.
Hundreds of viewers have complained about historical inaccuracies and needless sex scenes.
Academics joined the attack, saying the corporation had "dumbed down" British history.
Scroll down for more ...
The seducer: Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry VIII in the BBC2 drama The Tudors
Modern radiators, Tarmac driveways, concrete bollards and Victorian carriages have all made appearances in the tenpart series set in the 16th century.
Made by Showtime, a U.S. production company, The Tudors appeared on American screens before being bought by BBC2. Henry VIII is played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers of Bend It Like Beckham fame.
Last night, Leanda de Lisle, a Tudor biographer, said: "Overall the series is badly written with an extremely cheap feel to it.
"It is hugely disappointing. With inaccuracies in almost every sentence, the BBC is dumbing down the Tudor period."
She said the anachronisms would be acceptable only if the drama "rang true" - and this hadn't been the case.
Scroll down for more ...
Seductress: Anne Boleyn played by Natalie Dormer turns the tables on Henry VIII
Vision: Anne Boleyn appears naked in Henry's dreams
She added: "The characters talk in completely unnatural ways, addressing their own family members as "Anne Boleyn" or "Mary Boleyn" so that we, the stupid audience, understand who they're supposed to be.
"Henry VIII was exceedingly powerful, both politically and physically, but Rhys Meyers is pretty, rather than macho and thus completely unconvincing."
Viewers have been equally critical on the BBC's Points of View website.
"Imagine my bitter disappointment [with] a rewritten, out of context, out of time story about Henry VIII," wrote one. "The story of the Tudors is juicy enough already, it certainly did not need this Americanisation."
Another wrote: "I know that this programme was dumbed down for American audiences but I didn't think for one moment they would make up periods just for TV."
Scroll down for more ...
American: Even actor Sam Neill - playing Cardinal Thomas Wolsey - enjoys a sex scene or two
A raunchy sex scene between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, played by Maria Doyle Kennedy, appeared four minutes into the first episode.
In another scene, Henry is involved in a lewd sex act.
Friday's show will feature the king romping naked with Anne Boleyn, played by actress Natalie Dormer.
"[The Tudors] is a porno-style historical semi-drama [and] quite obviously not aimed at the serious TV watcher," wrote another viewer.
A fourth said: "At the risk of sounding like a big prude, the soft - bordering on hard - porn was totally overdone."
The radiator is seen in Henry's bed chamber while the asphalt driveway leads up to a mansion used by an aide.
In another episode, the king's ambassador is driven in a 19th century carriage, complete with springs that had yet to be invented.
Elsewhere, the philandering monarch has his inside leg measurements taken by a tailor using a modern-day metallic tape measure.
Last night, a BBC spokesman said: "The Tudors is not a documentary drama and as with all dramas, it is reasonable to expect a fair amount of artistic licence and to allow the writers to interpret and invent historical events.
Scroll down for more ...
Jonathan's Henry VIII is dark and brooding - but historians point out he should have red hair
"BBC Acquisitions hoped to attract a new, younger audience to history which we feel we have achieved.
"The Tudors is watched by over two million viewers, all of whom are enjoying the interpretation."
Alison Weir, historian and author of The Six Wives of Henry VIII, compared the series to a "Hollywood fairytale".
She added: "Henry had red hair, not black hair as this actor has, and some of the scenes are just plain gratuitous.
"Henry was a very discreet king; he would never have indulged in womanising openly. While he may have liked the ladies he would never have been so indiscreet - that is why there is so little evidence of his affairs.
"The truth is interesting enough so why try to glamorise it?"
She said viewers would be sold short, however limited their knowledge of the period.
Reader views (10)
I had never learned much about the Tudor period beyond a week in class in high school. There was also a day spent in one of my college level courses. Even with that limited knowledge I still knew the show wasn't accurate. (And can I add how offended I am that so many reviewers in the article say the show is dummed or "Americanized" as if the words are interchangeable and Americans are too stupid to understand their shows are sensationalized?)
Because of this show I have been prompted to read a lot about Tudor history, so I feel the show has served to inspire some historical research as well as entertain. I am in a Medieval British Literature class now and can't wait to get to that time period!
Ultimately, I think some academia are just so full of themselves they believe most people will watch a TV show and assume it's real, because they aren't as "educated." Maybe these learned folks just have nothing better to do than stroke their own egoes by whining about how much they know compared to everybody else.
- Cassie, Kentucky
All in all, a fairly futile attempt at a show. It can be borne only on the condition that one forget everything, but EVERYTHING one has ever known about British history, or for that matter, any history. Any time the show gets dull (frequent enough), they throw in another sex or torture scene (they alternate, but sex wins by a wide margin) to speed it up. But without use of the underlying, and sufficiently interesting real history, this show has no merits of its own on which to stand. The characters are poorly developed (except, perhaps, Catherine of Aragon and Wolsey), the details vastly inaccurate, and one feels that with the money saved by cutting just one or two useless sex scenes (and I'm all in favor of sex, plenty and for everyone--but in the right time and place, which this, for the most part, wasn't), the showmakers could have found the means to pay just one little historical consultant to save them the abundant humiliation. The decisions made by the scriptwriters possess little sense, and less style. Which description, in a nutshell, may be applied to the entire program.
- Ilia, Santa Cruz, CA, USA
Over here, we are in the third season already. I was extremely disappointed with the way they are portraying Henry VIII's marriage to Jane Seymour. He has taken a mistress and I was under the impression that she was the one wife that we're fairly certain he was faithful to!
- Lee Ann, Columbus, USA
Admittedly at first I wasn't impressed with the Tudors, simply because it wasn't historically correct. But then I saw an interview with Jonathan Rhys Meyers who said to not expect a history lesson, its just a story, so enjoy it. In the Tudor times they didn't have t.v, the internet or Playstations. Sex was a way of entertaining themselves, as was reading and needlework etc, and lets face it we all know what we would prefer to be doing. So of course there will be a lot of sex in it. I am 18 years old and lot of subjects that have come up in The Tudors have prompted me to look them up on the internet and find out about them. I have done this because I am not stupid enough to take it as true fact on the show. The reason the characters are all good looking is to attract a younger audience. Do you think I would be watching it if a big fat man was slobbering all over Anne? Er, no. Just because I am young doesn't mean I am stupid enough to actually believe Henry VIII actually looked handsome. So I have learnt a bit or two about the Tudors from this fantastic show, which is a welcome break from the ridiculous reality tv that we are subject to these days.
- Fiona, Leeds, England
Who gives a dam? I don't the play was good to watch and lets face it, nudity and sexual romps was much more prevalent at that time anyway. You guys are just a bunch of moaners who complain at anything.
- Gecko, London, England
I agree with the above comments regarding the show. I have had a strong interest in the Tudor period for the last 10 or so years, and so I guess I have a fair amount of knowledge on the subject. Despite a few issues that I do have with historical inaccuracies, I do enjoy the show for entertainment purposes, and thus this is what the show was made for.
- Elyse, Christchurch, New Zealand
While historical inaccuracies are present, I agree with the above comments.
It's entertainment and anyone who has done any reading on the Tudor period knows that it's not a terrible interpretation.
- Alli, Ontario, Canada
I am enjoying the series. Even though there are inaccuracies it has sparked my interest in the 'real' life of Henry VIII, his wives and this particular period. I also live near Rochford, Essex where there are buildings and roads that are named after characters from this period in history. Because of this I have now looked into the history of Rochford. If I hadn't started watching the series I would not have done this so maybe a little glamorising isn't such a bad thing and has even ended up being educational!
- Sharon, Hockley, Essex
Amazing really that they bother to produce news programmes if the only job is to entertain. Surely 'inform' is also somewhere within their remit?
- Bill, Bradford
Let's be real here. Anyone looking to the telly for their historical education is not going to be too concerned about any minor inaccuracies as pointed out by a few anoraks.
It's television, it's job is to entertain surely?
- Scott, London UK
