If you use two words to describe "The Tudor Dynasty", it is "gorgeous"; if you use three words to describe it, it is "gorgeous". For a TV series, "The Tudors" is absolutely as gorgeous as a movie. The vividness of the picture and the fragrant content complement each other, the throne, the crown, the splendid costumes, the handsome man, the beautiful woman, the executioner's butcher's knife... From the beginning of the film, you know that this must be a drama about the love story and power conspiracy in the extravagant palace. .
After watching a season, I really can't help but think of our own court dramas. It's not the kind of court drama that can fly on the roof of a blockbuster movie, but the "Zheng Shuo" similar to "Emperor Yongzheng" and the "Private Visit in Weiwei". "joking". Immediately, a sense of pride arises. Look at our ancestors in China. After all, it is a thousand-year-old civilization. What kind of grade is it when we play conspiracy! Looking at foreigners again, it is like a three-year-old child playing a house, and all the conspiracies are written on their faces for fear that others will not know. How to say Chinese are smart? Take a look at our "Three Kingdoms", that wisdom, that strategy, even if the late master Liu Chan was moved to the Tudor's courthouse, he would be able to play these uncivilized savages. I don’t know if the British would be anxious about the Americans when they saw that their ancestors were written as pig-like animals with developed limbs and a simple mind. Maybe the British would laugh at the Americans as usual. not educated. Some poems and music are embellished, and they are all prepared for cheating.
What does it matter if there is no culture? "The Tudors" isn't about culture anyway. Choosing the Tudor Dynasty, neither Bloody Mary nor Elizabeth I, but chose Henry VIII as the protagonist, apparently because of this "Bluebeard" who married six wives, "divorce-beheading-death, Divorce-Beheading-Birth", even now, is a magnificent marriage history and is closely related to the far-reaching religious reform that swept across Europe. And according to American preferences, intrigue in the harem is definitely a guarantee of ratings. In fact, the same is true of the Chinese. Even Er Yuehe, who claimed to be "not good at writing women", had to do everything in his power to insert a few women into the novel. By the way, the heroine of Eryuehe is really not very good, but a woman who only shows half of her face or even does not show her face at all is more worth seeing. Chinese people can't beat the Americans when they write pornography, it's either holy or vulgar.
Americans never seem to set a frame for themselves, and they basically don’t care whether they devalue or elevate a certain historical figure (I’m not writing about Americans anyway, if I write about Washington Lincoln, I might still have to worry about it), so the Tudor family King Henry is neither an emperor of the ages nor will he stink for thousands of years. On the one hand, he is capricious like a child clinging to the toys he wants, and on the other hand, he is cruel like a tyrant playing with the life and death of others. Many times, even when writing about a heinous criminal, the author will inject his own sympathy for the character, even if it is only a shred of it. But I have a hard time imagining how much sympathy and pity the playwright injected into writing Henry VIII, it felt more like a ruthless mockery of this "Bluebeard", like throwing a big handsome guy into the quagmire without any hesitation . In order to marry his new love, Ann Boleyn, Henry played a hypocrite in the church court and impassively demanded "justice" when he wanted to abandon the gracious and benevolent queen who was loved by the people. When people gnashed their hatred for this brazen betrayal, the ambitious Ann-Boleyn played Henry's appetite all over the place, making Henry's incomparably fiery "love" a laughing stock. Boleyn betrayed her and beheaded her. I was very happy to have popcorn ready and waited for the show. I really can't think of any words to describe how I feel about this handsome Henry VIII other than "deserving it". As for Ann Boleyn, there seem to be no good words to describe her in history. Ann Boleyn in the TV series certainly cannot be described as "good" like Aragon's Catherine, but it seems that she can't be simply described as "bad". explain her behavior. First of all, she is a tool, a tool used to help the family win the king's favor, but it can't be said that there is no love for Henry at all. When sent away by the king during the plague, Ann-Boleyn's tears showed that she was hurt, felt betrayed, and deep down she wanted to be with the king. Perhaps because of this, the love that had a weak foundation disappeared completely, and the entanglement after that could no longer be linked with "love", and Ann Bolling became a complete careerist and conspirator. It is a blasphemy to use love to define the love of this man and woman.
Love is not pure, marriage is not sacred, no religion is worth believing in, no ideal is worth pursuing, humanitarians burn the "infidels" alive, and war and peace are the games of kings. Subtracted conspiracy and love are not suitable for thinking or perception. But it's gorgeous and suitable for entertaining. If "faithfulness to history" makes Henry VIII a fat old man and Ann Boleyn as flat-chested as an airport, it's not even suitable for entertainment, so "The Tudors" has to be gorgeous. Like a palace built to form an alliance with France, although it is just a tent, it is gorgeous, and fortunately, the wine is real and drinkable.
View more about The Tudors reviews
