The Tudors: Season 3
Other reviewers have pretty much vetted the unnecessary liberties taken with historical facts in this ambitious tele-play, so I’ll refrain from that important point. However, I do have gripes with this TV archive, but at the same time admire the effort that’s gone into it.Regardless, I’ll echo my disappointment with the presentation of the characters who are supposed to be mature adults. Instead of casting capable age-appropriate actors to thesp the necessary roles, we’re given a near predominantly nightmarish youth-cultured cast to portray king, country and subjects (mostly anyway).Henry the eighth was a pretty big man (for the period at least), and, like most kings, threw his weight around (no pun intended). Instead of a being given a larger than life figure, as the former King of England was, we’re given a young tortured 20-something (possibly bi-sexual) whose physical frame, though fit, skews towards emaciation when contrasted to the real King Henry. Ditto with the other young cast members.So, why was this done? Marketing; or rather the broken Nielsen model that’s still used to measure ratings, tells the producers and marketers that the people who watch TV and buy products are the pre-30 age bracket. Ergo, it makes sense to cast actors with whom this imagined audience can identify. The result is that nearly all of the main leads are 20-somethings, and a few 40+ types are thrown in to show that there are older folks in renaissance Europe.The truth is the larger audience are actually older viewers, but, because they’re a bit more frugal with their dollars (or pounds, or Euros, or whatever currency your nation is using), they therefore don’t buy the impulse items the advertisers know they need to push on the youth market, because these are the items that “sell”. Hence the extravagant production values for “The Tudors”, but a near abysmal execution in terms of story and overall execution.And it’s really too bad, because this didn’t need to be so, but because the advertisers continue to rely on the Nielsen model, they continue to listen to it. If you ask any broadcasting professor worth his salt they’ll tell you what I’ve written here. Heck, books have been published on this. But Nielsen still dictates the game for marketing ostriches who have their heads stuck in the sand (or mayhap some bodily cavity, to borrow from the language of the time).Soap operas are big money makers, but the really successful ones use older casts. And this show decided to show Henry the VIII as a young man with deep psychological issues? Heck, why didn’t they just give him a renaissance era Play Station? There are, of course, the obligatory sex-scenes. Hey, after-all, this is pay cable-television, and what’s that without a little skin and philandering splattered on the screen? To be honest ( even when I was a youth with raging hormones) I found this aspect quite boring, but understand that it was done to compete (or rather ride the coat tails) or HBO’s “Rome”. Yet, given the push-button smut available on the internet to adolescents with some hacking know-how, it’s hard for me to imagine why “The Tudors” producers would even put this element into the show? But, never-mind.But, the thing that really gets me about this archive is that with all the money spent on making it look authentic why they didn’t take the set in a slightly different direction? How come the King isn’t more regally dressed? The acting and costumes, for all they’re worth, is actually fairly respectable, but the direction in which the show started, and has continued, leaves much to be desired.In short, if advertisers want TV audiences to buy their clients’ products via their sponsoring of television shows, then maybe they better do the following; A) LOWER the prices of the product; B) sell BETTER products (i.e. plastic-junk that doesn’t fall apart a year after you buy it); C) do your own stinking research for once, instead of relying on the model-T of data gathering engines; D) make a show people will like.I’ve really wanted American TV to make a grab for historical dramas, much like Japan’s highly successful samurai track record, as well as Europes (specifically England’s BBC and ITV, as well as France and the Scandinavian countries). It would have been a welcome change. Heck, the American trademark is the western, and nobody does them like we do. But to treat the bulk of the audience like over-sexed 20-something air-heads, when most 20-somethings are hitting the night-life, is beyond insulting to not only that age group, but to demonstrate a contempt for people as a whole. And that, more than anything else, has dictated by sales for advertiser’s products are abysmal.In short, I applaud the effort of “The Tudors”, and acknowledge the forces dictating the show’s ultimate direction, but I still say this thing could have been much better. If you want to see a dramatization of this period, and dealing with the king’s trysts, then do yourself a favor by turning off this show, and looking at the DVD of “A Man For All Seasons”.
