TinaII2None said:

---

 

(And I don't know if this is sad on my part or not, but do you know that while I did pay very close attention to the movie version of TOBG, the ONLY thing I can now remember is the scene that had me screaming at my TV and looking for things to throw: Faux Mary walking into the Tudor court…and walking back out again with Faux Elizabeth. That was almost a bigger crime than, well, making the movie period LOL)

 

Did you notice the modern drainpipe thing on the tower in TOBG execution scene? I'm sure they did no post-production editing on that film.

TinaII2None said:

---

And I also want a screenplay based on some source (Eric Ives, Alison Weir, etc.) that I can even consider remotely reliable…which means She-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named can't be within several hundred miles of a set!

I agree, Tina. I would love a screenplay to be written using Ives's book as a template. Done correctly (and without any imput by you know who), I think it could be a great film.

DuchessofBrittany said:

---

I agree, Tina. I would love a screenplay to be written using Ives's book as a template. Done correctly (and without any imput by you know who), I think it could be a great film.

I think it has been one of the major problems I've had with any of the movies or TV shows I've seen on the Tudors. I mean think about it. You have a family that — on one side — was descended from French royalty and a likely “common” Welsh background, and on the other was descended from Edward III. You have a widowed Queen who falls in love with a Welshman; one of their sons marries the 13-year-old immensely wealthy Beaufort heiress and she gives birth to a son, nearly dying in the process. She and the son become involved in the Wars of the Roses on the Lascastrian side. The son goes into exile, and returns years later to defeat the Yorkist King on the battlefield…..And THAT is just the tip of the Tudor iceberg!

What I'm saying is that you have this incredible, unbelievable story of love and heartache, death and betrayal, lust and sex and loyalty and lies, and people so human that they don't often feel real. But for some reason, screenwriters, directors and producers never seem to feel that's enough. And I'm not just pointing a finger at those like She-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named or Michael Hirst. You can go all the way back to the silent era with When Knighthood Was In Flower (Mary Rose and Charles Brandon) or Lubitsch's Deception (with the miscast Henny Porten as Anne and the even more miscast Emil Jannings as Henry), keep going up through Charles Laughton's Oscar winning turn as Henry, and keep coming forward to Richard Burton, Keith Michell, Robert Shaw, Eric Bana, JRM, Ray Winstone, et al. Just once, let them film it as it actually happened, and we won't need such fictions as Wolsey committing suicide or Catherine Howard posing naked at the drop of a hat (or dress); Anne of Cleves having an affair with Holbein or the whole family showing up at Henry's deathbed while he declares that Elizabeth will surprise them all.

Now…climbing down off the soap box.  

DuchessofBrittany said:

---

I couldn't agree more. The story of the Tudors is so exciting and full of intrigue, etc. I am not sure why that is not enough. It has all the makings of a great film, and yet Hollywood feels the need to create some convoluted, deliusional, pesudo-intellectual version of events. Just once I wish the film industry would believe in the intelligence of an audience (especially one who would see an Anne/Henry film), and write history as it was intended. I know that everything cannot be “accurate,” but at least keep the true nature of the Tudors: love and death, hate and passion, war and peace, religion and politics. If it was good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for me.
 

Here, here!

Though it might be a while before Hollywood starts respecting the intelligence of audiences….

I now have an image of H8 as a wanna be gangsta rapper with his bling and his “hoes”.

I don't have one particular favourite Henry, I think several different actors have played Henry well at various different ages.

1.  Jonathan Rhys Meyers in The Tudors played a good young Henry, not particularly looks wise, but personality wise, this is how I imagined Henry to be.  Handsome, full of life, very athletic and having various lovers. 

2.  Eric Banner in TOBG was another good Henry.  This is more what I imagined Henry to look like in his 20-30's. 

3.  Ray Winston I thought was ideal for a Henry in his 40's.  A lot of shouting and moodiness. 

Anne fan said:

Keith Michell for the ageing process without a doubt – the man must have spent hours and hours in make-up AND that was back in the 70s. The film is good to look at but too severely edited. The series is much better and concentrates on the moments of drama in each wife's life.

 

Richard Burton was energetic, charismatic and you could feel Henry's passion for Anne through the screen.

 

Unfortunately I think the more recent Henrys have struggled with pseudo-history, terrible scripts and producers' and directors' desire to make something 'relevant' rather than telling what TinaII2None correctly identifies as a fantastic story. They might be doing an excellent job with what they've been given but they don't make me feel like Henry is coming to life before my eyes.

 

Going back to the comment about ideas about looks changing – the only person whose looks appear to have survived the centuries (IMO) is Prince Rupert of the Rhine. I saw his portrait in the National Portrait Gallery and HAD to find out who he was!

I have a particular fondness for Keith Michell, because his was the first Henry I ever saw in a movie or TV series. I guess that's why he still remains one of my favorites. (And I just remembered that he also played another King with numerous wives…only he appears to have had all of his at the same time: King David). But like you, I'm admiring of the time he obviously spent in the make-up chair, being transformed into Henry. In the series, he plays Henry from a teen prince until he dies as an obese, sickly tyrant. Not many actors could tackle a role that spans nearly 40 years, and remain convincing without jumping the shark. (Which is why you often see a younger actor and then an “older” actor take on the same part in a movie or TV show). I've seen some awful “old age” makeup in my time! LOL

I didn't see Richard Burton's Henry until just a few years ago, but I love that performance. Every now and then though, I toss it around in my head as to my favorites and the ones that I couldn't take (or can take in extremely small doses) and I don't think my opinion has changed much. Laughton might have won an Oscar and given a fine performance, but there's something of a cariacature in what's a historical mess of a movie…and I'm talking about The Private Life; it goes even more over the top in Young Bess when he recreates his role — especially him shouting at everyone surrounding his deathbed, telling them all that Elizabeth will surprise them yet. I still have mixed feelings about Ray Winstone's Henry. And the usually great Emil Jannings just gave me a migraine when I saw him in Lubitsch's Anna Boleyn. (But this is one I complain about a lot because it had such a Germanic feel to it — and Henny Porten is NO Anne. Oh what the heck — I didn't think much of Jannings' Henry. This is one of those times he should have stuck with The Blue Angel  or The Last Laugh).

Anne fan — I think I said what a lot of us have thought. When you have a great story, why mess with it by twisting history or adding some writer or director's opinion that isn't accurate? Just once before I leave this world, I would like to see the story of the Tudors told in a long-running definitive series based on the works of say David Starkey, Eric Ives, Alison Weir — well, you get my drift. And then stick to the facts as best they can. I realize the dialogue would have to be recreated in many instances, but just keep the story straight for a change. It also wouldn't hurt LOL if they went back to Henry VII at Bosworth Field — let's see his relationship with Elizabeth of York and their children; how the betrothal of Arthur and Catherine came about; young Henry Duke of York spending his formative years with his mother and sisters…and let's see something about the much married Margaret and Mary Rose's love for Charles Brandon. And yes, work in Henry and the now familiar story of him and his wives. Now THAT would be a Tudor series I could be very happy watching!

Keith Michell Played a very good Henry. But Richard Burton seemed to catch his firey temprement I think.
Ray Winstone certainly put a different slant on Henry, and I think that he was probably the best Henry thus far. The Scene where Henry (Ray) finds out what K.H had been up to and bursts into her room and threatens to kill her is one of the best scenes ever, it’s believable. Henry did actually call for sword so he could go and kill her.
I enjoyed watching The Tudors, but agree at times JRM did go a little OTT sometimes, and didn’t seem to gel as Henry if that makes sence.
Charles Laughton, put a comic slant on Henry, as did James Robinson Justice, and he did at least look very convincing as Henry.
Charles Laughton was Henry in The Private life of Henry 8th, a old black and white film of 1933.
James Robinson Justice was Henry in The Sword and Rose 1953.
Anyway as ratings go I will give Ray Winstone 10 out 10. he was by far the most convincing Henry.

Sharon said

I have not seen the Ray Winstone portrayal of Henry yet. But he has the look.

 My favorite would have to be Richard Burton.  I think he had Henry down perfect.  I’m dating myself here, but I think he was one of the finest actors to come out of England.  I love all of his films.  He was a wonderful Shakespearean actor. He was a joy to watch. The best in his field.  When I was younger, I played thealbum of the broadway play of Camelot constantly until it was worn out.  It took years before I found the version on CD; and now, I play that one all the time. 

Richard Burton without a doubt was one of the finest actors Britain ever had. His voice was just incredible. I guess you must have heard Jeff Wayne’s war of the worlds, his voice in that was just so believable. I love the film Where Eagles Dare, and Cleopatra of course, the film was brilliant, and although they had an off screen relationship and were married twice. The love he shared with Elizabeth Taylor was in that film too, he was a wonderful actor and is sorely missed.

Richard Burton .. he’s yummy and he captured Henry perfectly!
Eric Bana – Terrible movie, but I could stare at him for hourssssssssss.
JRM- Delicious, but not accurate. Great actor though!