Amendment: There was some information I only became aware of towards the end of editing, which I will post here (when I do the full rant on this series I will make sure to include it). Unfortunately, the journalist in the Guardian who wrote the article I quoted, did not tell the whole story. Lynsey Miller gave an interview on the 1st June, after the series was taking flak for the costumes and, whilst she still stands behind the Prada Headband... thing and says a load more nonsense about it being my trigger word, this segment is very interesting and needs to be added in here: “It wasn’t a conscious decision to go without embroidery or intricate trimmings [as you would expect from other Tudor-themed dramas], I was just focused on colour, cut, and silhouette at the start. But every time I tried to add a trim or embroidery, it felt like it dulled down the costumes and what was striking about them. We also really didn’t really have the time for it, in the end. *We started filming just on the cusp of the second lockdown, and there was a quick decision that this shoot was suddenly just going to happen. So we had five weeks to prepare, which for a period drama is unheard of*” “I wasn’t going to be able to achieve that kind of embroidery and the level of intricacy, so I decided to trust my gut and go with it. I think if I’d had more time or resources, I don't think I would have been as brave.” - www.bustle.com/style/true-story-behind-anne-boleyn-costumes-according-to-lynsey-moore-costume-designer The part I put in bold text is the most important here. FIVE WEEKS is all the time that was spent on pre-production... that is insane! Again, comparing to Becoming Elizabeth, that was announced in December of 2019 and was going to film in June 2020 before it was delayed to December due to the you know what, so it had at least six months (a year if we count the six month delay added on). In another interview, it has also been stated that Mark Stanley was cast a matter of weeks before filming. Also, sorry this one came out quite late UK Time, had a load of last minute issues with internet and the UA-cam Creator Studio. There are one or two minor errors I have just noticed with grammar and spelling here and there as usual, but that sadly happens when you have large text in videos like I do. There are a few pictures as well I had to use to show events that don't quite match (for example, the 1511 joust image for the 1536 one) but that was due to a lack of suitable images for my needs so I went with something that was at least close to how it would have looked.
Well I recently watched this movie only because my friends had it and I wanted to see it cuz I was thinking about making my own review of it. The only kind of good things I can say about this movie was the fact I was at least a bit interested with Mary being in this. I was just surprised seeing her that she was actually her and Anna had a quick talk although I wasn't that impressed by it. Another thing I was really disappointed about was that she signed the papers at the very end right before she got executed thinking and she was going to a nunnery but really it was just a trick and she just got executed. Before she sign those papers I was just really disappointed cuz I was going to say don't sign them don't sign them. And what did she did she signed them. I was never looking forward to this movie but I only watch it simply because if I'm going to review it I have to at least watch it first. Anyway your reviews are great keep up the amazing work you do.
What I usually do on my other channel where it's basically all text on the screen is that I type it into Word and then paste it into the video. I have a sort of problem where I have difficulties to varrying degrees in spelling in all languages I speak, so I'm very conscious about that. I found that this method works for me. Maybe it could be something that you could try if it bothers you.
The costumes were so bland and strange. I don’t think I saw one jewel in the entire series! Why is Anne Boleyn, the Queen of England, dressed exactly like her ladies in waiting??
While watching "The Tudors", I went through the phase of admiring Anne, since I think with the script she was given, Natalie Dormer played her very well, both in cunning and cleverness that helped Anne rise to power, but also with her sensitivity and jealousy, that eventually blinded her from seeing the reality of her marriage to Henry VIII., leading to her downfall. After growing up and reading more historians' books and essays on the actual historical characters of the era, I started having much more sympathy to Catherine of Aragon and even Anne of Cleves, over the Boleyns. Their stories are not of power-hunger above all else, but about in Catherine's case, of standing true to her faith and conscience, while in Anne's case, of being kind and supporting to those around her, even in the most unwelcome circumstances, which eventually pays off. I think people want to make Henry's wives seem more independent, in order to display modern values on conservative societies of the past, not realising how it makes all this idea much weaker. If these women were all born fighters and headstrong, then they made the stupidest choice by marrying Henry VIII (especially Anne Boleyn, who had every choice from the start). I liked how "Tudors" showed Anne flawed and going more and more crazy about Henry's infidelity, because that seems thousands time more psychological portrayal of Anne Boleyn than Jodie Turner's character, ironically enough. "The Spanish Princess" is still the craziest historical drama for me, but Channel 5's "Anne Boleyn" is a close second. Unfortunately, given the direction it's going so far, we'll be seeing more and more period dramas going on a crusade about "female empowerment", while actual interesting female characters from history will be omitted, if they seem to "feminine" and kind, likeable or just human beings by this point. I'm still waiting for someone to do justice to Margaret Beaufort for once, she was a remarkable woman and much more complex than whatever Philippa Gregory thought her to be.
Exactly, by trying to "girlbossify" women's history, they are undermining the very stories they attempt to portray. At least we can take comfort in the fact that these dramas at least provide a gateway for people to pick up a book and get into the real history. Ironically enough, I probably owe my entire academic career to the Tudors, as it was my entry point into early modern history, spurring me to pick up some Antonia Fraser in my high school library.
@@TheBc99 Yeah, I only became a David Starkey fan because of "The Tudors", which he also criticized, because I wanted to know more. Similarly, after watching "The Borgias", I fact-checked it, because it was so unrealistic, I later did the same with "The White Queen" and it's continuations (but I stopped around second season of "The Spanish Princess, because it was all just so wrong and after reading about Catherine of Aragon, I felt insulted by this series a lot). I'm now a fan of Ottoman history, also because of "Magnificent Century" show, because it also doesn't handle history very well, but rather than sexualising characters, it makes them all involved in a lot of petty drama or intrigues, which to be fair mostly are made up (maybe except the plot against Şehzade Mustafa, but even historians don't know how exactly Hürrem's fraction was involved in it). This things really made people look up Leslie Peirce's works, as well as others (Gülru Necipoğlu and Halil İnalcik to name a few), so that I think it sparked some better informed discussion about "Sultanate of women" and how it's not the intrigues, but cold, pragmatic politics involved, actually.
@@khfan4life365who cares about that twat that was Henry VIII. He is most definitely busy burning in hell or preparing places for craters of this atrocity.
Cavalier (After having taken power): The attempt on history has left me scared, but I assure you my resolve has never been stronger." History lovers: (Mass applause) Cavalier: "The time has come, execute Order 66." History lover: "It will be done my Lord!"
Well, that was certainly horrifying to witness. As someone who has been dedicated to this period of history since the age of ten (seventeen years) and, despite being American, hell, I could do a hell of a better job at the helm of this production team. Sure, some creative embellishments are all right, but changing her race and actually having her lock lips with Jane Seymour?! Come on!! What was Channel 5 thinking?! Clearly, they weren't.
All channel 5 is concerned about is having people talk about them. All publicity is good publicity I guess in their eyes. Just don’t know why they felt that these two HIGLY religious women, in a 15 hundreds court in England were making out. If you wanna see Jane Seymour through the eyes of a man. Just show Henry’s point of view. A queen of England would NOT be locking lips with one of her ladies. Especially when she was executed for LESS. Horrible horrible writing.
Me too! I've been addicted snce I saw Young Bess on TNT in the 90s. I'm old. And I can't stand colorblind casting. It can work in something like fantasy or scifi that takes place in a world removed from our own, but in things like history, no. I always wonder how people who are so for colourblind casting would feel if Nelson Mandela was played by a white person? Absolutely no! And I'd be right there with them.
@@virginiagobetz9946 my bad, I will admit when I commented this I only had half a screen due to internal cracks so I’m surprised there isn’t another spelling mistake in there 😅😅
"So Eustace Chapuys is Spanish, right? How will the audience know that?" "Uh...put enough eye shadow on him that he looks like a racoon?" "And that means he's Spanish?" "Maybe."
I just spent several minutes laughing giddy at the picture of an actual racoon in full Tudor regalia being taken deadly seriously by an outraged Keith Michelle playing Henry Viii
I don’t mind shitty movies/tv shows when they don’t claim to be anything other than entertainment, but when they keep on claiming “telling it from Anne’s POV” “showing the TRUE story” and stuff like that, it’s honestly offensive when they keep rambling bs, misinformation and myths. Why even bother??
8:57 "At least this Henry is probably better than the version we have to deal with in Spannish Princess" But Cavalier thats a bar so low it doesn't even require the effort of jumping.
The music in the Tudors used actual music from the time when it was used diagetically. I would have liked them to use it full time. P. S. I don't know whether to refer to BARRY in the Wrath of Khan fashion or Fairly Odd Parents Fashion.
Also, on the point about having Anne staying in the same room as she did on her coronation and having a flashback: you may not need the flashback, you could have a character be in the room with Anne (perhaps Kingston upon leading her there) and then Anne could maybe talk about how she was here before, describing what it was like and through her voice perhaps hearing her sadness as she's wistfully comparing the two - maybe showing through her facial expressions and eyes (subtly, mind you, not the childish melodrama we see nowadays) like she's in a trance, seeing the room how it was, and we the audience can picture her former happiness for ourselves, while Kingston silently sympathises with her but does his solemn duty regardless. This would of course require a talented actress who could convey such complex emotions.
Thank you for including the cameo of the late, great Norm MacDonald. He is much missed. Also, let's talk about the appalling costumes. Do we really think Anne's seamstresses were unable to fit her properly when she was pregnant? And that's just the beginning of the issues.
If they are looking for a fresh view on the Tudor drama, why hasn't there been a series focusing on Cardinal Wolsey's perspective? That's would be more interesting than the nth time Anne Boleyn has been the focus. Also, curios why Japan has yet to make a Tudor anime.
I haven't watched the series, and don't intend to - admittedly I'm not actually that interested in Tudor history, at least not as it's usually portrayed. But I am interested in who these real life figures were as individuals, as human beings. In that context, I'm interested in Anne Boleyn and boy, you don't even have to venture too far into her life story to immediately, and instinctually gather what a fascinating person she was. I strongly believe that extraordinary circumstances create extraordinary people. Anne Boleyn is already intriguing enough without being so weirdly miscast, and misinterpreted, in this manner. I also have to say I think it not only detracts from Anne's true struggles (racism and racial prejudice were not things Anne struggled with). But it's degrading and insulting to black people, because it arguably frames Anne's ethnicity as the cause of her downfall. To me it seems to say "Anne Boleyn was victimized and brutalized because she was black = black people are victims, who we ought to always pity". If I was black, I would honestly feel so outraged by that. And I would also feel so outraged by the fact that history has an abundance of incredible black leaders, artists, musicians, visionaries, writers, academics, philosophers, and revolutionary thinkers whose stories are generally left untold and unsung. Isn't it arguably racist, or at least dismissive of black history, to effectively say "if you want to expand your range as a black British actor, be prepared to try your luck at playing historical WHITE people"? It would be just as easy to write a new story, celebrating and exploring the lives of real historical black people, as it would be to write a Tudor drama in which a black woman plays the lead role? I just don't understand this liberal woke politically correct agenda. Which, when you examine it more closely, is derogatory, dismissive and saturated with its own special brand of racism.
*holds mirror up to see who you REALLY are*: *turns out to be King Phillip Of Spain's daughter in surprisingly good disguise as a Royalist English nobleman from over a century later* ...okie dokie then
- So yes, they would kiss on the lips as it is a common custom still in many other countries. However, it was a kiss that you might give your child (trying to think of a modern-day example), not what they were doing there where there is clearly passion in the kiss. A kiss between two people that weren't Romantically involved would have been short and sweet-a peck on the lips. - I would say at least they didn't do to George what the Tudors did. He had an affair with Mark because he gifted him a book about marriage. - I will say it again, the costumes are shit; if the French hood ever looked like that, Anne Boleyn would have been a fan of the English hood. No way in heck Anne would love the French hood if it were that horrible in appearance. - I still think it would have been good to follow one of Catherine's servants. A woman being converted to Christianity and struggling with this new identity. It could make for a powerful story. - there was no embodiment or jewelry at all "not to have any around the neckline" the dresses for covered with fur, patterns and jewelry, yet we saw none.
@@khfan4life365 not sure if it is linked but I think George's opinion on marriage might have been a reason. But I have doubt as that stuff was a bit more recent
@@POTO_Phan yeah, I did read that George was ambivalent towards marriage, but I don’t think he was a wife-beater like many of these so-called historical shows make him out to be. There wasn’t any proof that he was ever hostile to Jane.
If I am rich, I'll make a movie called "Another movie about Anne Boleyn", in that movie I'll make a parody of every thrash movie about her, and looks like a cheap Mexican tv show, and I, a man will be the main character(a very nice inclusion), my favourite scene will be me(Anne), doing a key with my legs to Mary Tudor while Jane Seymour is crying in a corner
I’m glad I missed it, as a huge royal history/ Tudor history fan I’ll stick to productions such as the 1970 six wives series, and the 1969 Anne of the thousand days both of which for example did a wonderful job portraying Anne’s story from the acting to the costumes etc… Also for the 2021 production WHY did they feel the need to have Anne kiss JANE SEYMOUR the woman who will eventually replace Anne as Queen as if they wanted to ship Anne and Jane as a couple seriously how does that make any sense.
This was a travesty, not only does it do a disservice to Anne Boleyn but also Jane Seymour and Jane Boleyn too. Shoving a person of colour into a real life person just to tick some boxes when there are plenty of real poc stories to be told, is ridiculous. I could forgive the costume mistakes but I cannot and won't forgive that. May the dead haunt them and stop them from doing future productions.
This is exactly why this bothers me. It just feels like condescension and exploitation, not actually caring about people of color. There are fantastic stories from cultures around the world. Why not do a movie or series about any of those instead? I support making avant garde choices in art, presented as art, but they didn't do that here. They did that and then disingenuously presented it as "Anne's story". It's not her story, it's an artistic response piece- it's the artist's story that is simply using that setting and those characters, and the actors themselves, as tools for the artist to express themself (himself? I can't remember who the creator is lol). Which, again, would be fine if it was honestly presented as such. This is just dishonesty, and it pains me that the actors were possibly kind of manipulated into this situation, and used. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but the fact is that many times actors are pressured to sign on to something before even a full script is presented to them. After they've committed, they are really locked in, legally, and cannot get out of it without dire consequences. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened and the actors and crew were just trying to be professional and classy and positive about the whole messed up thing.
Did you mean a black person. What is a 'person of colour' ffs? Is that someone who looks like a rainbow or is white not an actual colour anymore, despite it often having many more variations of 'colour'. The fact you fell into a commie woke trap just shows you're just as guilty of this escape from reality and real language as the rest of these idiots. Sorry. A nice true but ultimately an F.
@gengirl830 'people of colour' oh please. What's the new name for white ppl then, those of no colour. Obviously another young person dragged through the 'inclusion and diversity' (anything but) of the modern education system.
Anne did rip her uncle up verbally, seriously once old Norfolk complained to King Henry that she, Anne had used words to him; Norfolk that he, Norfolk would not have used to a dog. She got that trait from her old man. Thomas Boleyn was thought haughty and over proud.
me: (having a long list of Things To Do) The Laughing Cavalier: *uploads new video* me: Screw this, time for tea, snacks and Cavalier. P.S. Excuse me, old bean, what do you think on BBC's "Charles II: The Power & the Passion"? Knowing that it has Rufus Sewell, the man who looks at you like you're something stuck at his shoe, it might be interesting, but Charles II? Probably, Mathew Bayton from Horrible Histories might be the better Charles II?
The costumes look really bad. Anne Boleyn was a fashionable woman. She would have worn all sorts of beautiful dresses with embellishments and jewels. Same with her ladies in waiting.
Lola Petticrew is obviously bullshitting about the kiss, we all know it was only put in there as a cheap excuse to fetishize wlw Also it’s really not hard to make good Tudor gowns, I don’t think the designer for this even tried considering the silhouette looks Rococo/Georgian with barely a hint of Tudor (Jane Seymours pink dress is a great example of how much they failed)
So glad I discovered your channel. Your take on the Tudor shows are very much enjoyed. That being said, I pray Hollywood or someone make a true to history story of Henry, his wives and his children. Tired of the over the top portrayals and casting supermodels as a middle aged Henry. PS I was going to watch The Spanish Princess and the other ones, but you talked me out of it...Thank You !
Nothing infuriates me more than when a costume designer isn’t willing to draw from the time period when working on a period piece and instead tries to do a ‘modern’ take on it It begs the question, why are they even working on a period piece if they aren’t even willing to be authentic to the time period? It’s so disheartening that every other production seems to hate historical authenticity and would prefer to modernise the costumes (and they don’t even look good, half the time as well!)
But PLEASE finally an accurate one. One, which depicts her deeply neurotic side, her pathological obsession with beauty, her unlucky marriage with Franz Joseph, her unwillingness to fulfill her duties as Empress and most importantly, the long and deep depressions she suffered from during the last years of her life, especially after the suicide of her son Rudolf. Portaying her as a fairy tale princess does injustice to her real story.
This comment, I must admit, I off the topic of this particular video. I am currently watching the limited series Gunpowder on HBOMax (about the gunpowder plot against King James I). I would love to see you do a video comparing it to history as to historical accuracy. May I say I do love your videos. Thank you so very much for the time and energy that you put into them.
Me: sees the Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour kiss The historian in me: WTF that makes no sense this is a homophobic society, that would be a big deal. The feminist in me: WTF that makes no sense, also stop cheapening wlw relationships by implying that one of the characters is doing it to understand her male husband's attraction. The lesbian in me: Pretty women kissing!!! 😍
As delighted as I am that a beautiful, talented black actress like Jodie Turner-Smith has the opportunity to play Anne Boleyn, Anne Boleyn wasn’t black.
Now he shall once again retreat into the shadows of suffering and torment to suffer through more terrible historical dramas. Or just watch anime instead. xD
It was Norris not Weston who referred to having his head cut off after Anne Boleyn jokingly told him he looks for dead mens shoes.......that if anything were to happen to the king that Norris would look to have Anne, and it was this overheard misconstrued conversation that had Anne charged with treason. Cromwell was able to make much more of this flirtatious exchange than what was actually meant.
I watched for the hell of it but as a history lover it’s kinda irking especially when it took me YEARS to actually admit and somewhat admire Anne Boleyn for a woman who was ahead of her time to see her black washed. Especially when there was a historical black presence in Tudor England im sure they could have made a a story around the time of Anne if they wanted a black presence. And the Jane Seymour thing….imma cringe the same way spanish princess had Elizabeth of York do a threatmantic(?) kiss on Katherine and that starz show blew everything left so yeaaah Anne Boleyn 2021 was a…..interesting ride
good god how did this not show up in my feed??? I had deleted the show from my mind or so I thought but your comment earlier responding to me fired it all back and my gods still so bad .... ugh
We brought Anna of Cleves to life. In a 3D movie, as an hologram and as an animated augmented reality model, ua-cam.com/video/ZmCxOIgMqnw/v-deo.html, and we can do the same for all the other Tudors.
There was *a lot* of “aww hell no’s” said while I watched this last night. But, what is psychologically thrilling part of this show? What that the actors didn’t snicker and cringe through their lines?
Speaking of bad Anne Boleyn documentaries, have any of you heard the one called Blood, Sex, and Royalty that’s on Netflix? It’s about Anne Boleyn and the Tudor court. They use modern slang and music. Watching it was just as painful as this “documentary”.
I read a fun fact about that film once. The costumes/uniforms are very accurate with the exception of the Light Brigade all having red trousers (only one Hussar regiment had red trousers, the rest had dark blue like their tunics). Apparently this was the director's decision and it was nearly worst. He wanted to have the British Foot Guards in blue tunics as well (!) Luckily, the costume designer threatened to resign if the Guards were not allowed to wear their red coats so he got his way there at least!
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier my favourite thing about the film is the British officers uniforms, also why on earth would you have the foot guards in blue tunics????
We need more creative approaches to Anne Boleyn. If Bert I. Gordon did this it would be GREAT!. Queen Anne would grow into a 50 ft. giant, demolish downtown London and then go north to fight the Lochness monster.
That painting of Thomas Cranmer at 20:44, do you think that pattern on the arms of the chair are just carved wood, or inlaid mother of pearl? I’ve never noticed it before.
I was thinking what I'd like to see of this many times chewed bone, the Tudor period. I would love to see a story about the reformation. Or is it just me, because I'm so interested in religious history?
Why does every Tudor drama struggle with French hoods or hoods in general? Is it really that difficult to make a crescent with jewels and a black veil? Why do they always make them look like very cheap tiaras? And why the actresses don't wear them constantly? They make it as if it was normal for a woman at that time to not wear the hood sometimes, like it was a bow or a brooch. The hood wasn't simply an ornament, it was a religious custom, like the hijab is for muslims.
I didn't hate this show but the death of the horse was traumatic. Like why? Even people with only a passing knowledge of history know what happened to Anne.
The moment Anne became black, I made the decision not to watch a second of it. I realize there won't be total historical accuracy but this was so blatantly false.
I am not going to lie to me the costume was really look like they're not even complete. They look like they're in the bases for someone who is just starting out on making the clothing or practicing and just literate the pieces on to try the former shape of how it it's going to look when it's complete but not in the form it's in right now.
I do think there's a nuanced discussion to be had here about race-blind (or "race-conscious") casting, and when it can or can't work, as well as the genuine problem with lack of diversity in period dramas. When it comes to the first issue, it's been common practice in many theater productions to do race-blind casting for a long time now, and the audience is able to suspend disbelief and just enjoy the performance. I do think there are lots of factors to think about here - for example, is it easier to do this with fictional characters than with actual historical figures? (I personally think so.) Does it work better onstage than onscreen? Does it work better in certain types of stories - for example, those that are more 'stylized' and not really going for pure accuracy? I definitely don't think we should just dismiss the concept entirely, as it can be totally valid and work well in a production, and give opportunities to actors who wouldn't get a chance at these roles otherwise. There just needs to be some thought put into it. The second issue is that the assumption that period dramas = all white people truly does need to die. Totally erasing the presence of actual PoC in Tudor England in basically every Tudor production ever made (with the exception of - I die inside to say this - The Spanish Princess, as badly as they did it) is in its way just as inaccurate as making Anne Boleyn Black, and yet you almost never see it called out as such. I personally would very much like to see the stories of more of these actual historical PoC told and included, like the example of John Blanke you suggested. So I think casting choices like this one are trying to counter-balance a genuine problem that does exist, that period dramas historically have been and often continue to be aggressively all-white, often when there's no reason they needed to be. Is this the solution I personally would go for? Not really. But I understand the context in which it happens and what it's trying to make up for. I do think that needs to be part of the discussion, too.
For me a period drama made up of all white casts, when the characters and setting clearly call for it, is totally fine. Excluding PoC simply to exclude is the problem, but that isn't the case when telling the story of real life historic white people, just as having an all black cast for a period piece about real life historic black people. But of course, I believe for a historical period piece based on real people, one should attempt to cast actors that resemble the real life person (I'm still grumpy about the random old guy they had portraying Horatio Seymour in Lincoln). And yeah, it is exclusionary. If I were an actor, I wouldn't expect to have an opportunity to portray Barack Obama or LeBron James... that'd just be silly.
@@MartinWenzelYT Yep, your opinion is very close to mine. I think the casting should reflect the reality of what these places actually looked like. When you're casting people who historically were white, I personally think it makes the most sense to cast actors who are also white. Not only because they look like the historical figure, but also because the fact that these people were white Europeans is an integral fact of their lives, and had they in fact been PoC their lives would almost certainly have gone very differently. But that said, there were also real PoC who are part of European history and they shouldn't be erased, nor should we pretend Europe was 100% made up of white people up until 100 years ago, when that obviously isn't the case. So reflecting the historical reality means understanding both of those things, IMO.
I for one do not appreciate scenes with WLW being added for shock factor to a straight audience. The LGBT community wasn't created in 2010, and there is no reason not to actually look for the few mentioned people in history and write about them or create a premise about fictional characters from our community. The explanation for it by Lola was honestly offensive; 'seeing the male gaze through the female gaze' first of all does not make sense and second of all just sounds like our existence is solely here for and because of men.
Especially since they could do actual historical LGBT peoples but that would take effort and nuance and taking a risk and we know Hollywood doesn’t do that.
I'm actually fine with the colour-conscious casting (though that is a rather ridiculous term for it, but whatever), but your review fortunately seems to focus mainly on all the rest that could and should have been done better if they wanted to live up to their own brief for the series. I can actually also forgive a rushed costume department - and possibly set department as well - though the producers who opted for that rush have a bit more explaining to do. And bad writing for a Tudor drama? I mean, doesn't the period almost write the drama itself? You have vivid characters ready-made, plot-twists and denouements aplenty, and basically all the writers have to do is not mess about with it too much. (Or, of course, mess about with it completely and set in on a 1970s council estate if they really don't care for historical details. I mean, I'd probably watch that and not mind, because at least it would be honest about only taking the historical events as a plot guideline only, so liberties would be clearly understood and expected.)
im not even as mad that they messed up the casting as I am with the plot, I mean the tudor period is literally so interesting and somehow this is so boring and dry. if they just stuck with the real history it would be much more successful.
Ok so having watched this serise when it came out i have to say this has got to be one of worst historical TV shows or movies i've watched, it made the historian in me die a little bit watching it and i have even more sympathy for Cavalier now having to watch shows that are even worse. And no please God no don't do it Channel Five do not make the Catherine Howard one please.
I’m never tired of hearing about hoods, especially in rant form 👍 22:28 - basically they’re saying they’ve insulted all the existing fans of this part of history, so now they’re looking for a new community of fans to insult.
Amendment: There was some information I only became aware of towards the end of editing, which I will post here (when I do the full rant on this series I will make sure to include it). Unfortunately, the journalist in the Guardian who wrote the article I quoted, did not tell the whole story. Lynsey Miller gave an interview on the 1st June, after the series was taking flak for the costumes and, whilst she still stands behind the Prada Headband... thing and says a load more nonsense about it being my trigger word, this segment is very interesting and needs to be added in here:
“It wasn’t a conscious decision to go without embroidery or intricate trimmings [as you would expect from other Tudor-themed dramas], I was just focused on colour, cut, and silhouette at the start. But every time I tried to add a trim or embroidery, it felt like it dulled down the costumes and what was striking about them. We also really didn’t really have the time for it, in the end. *We started filming just on the cusp of the second lockdown, and there was a quick decision that this shoot was suddenly just going to happen. So we had five weeks to prepare, which for a period drama is unheard of*”
“I wasn’t going to be able to achieve that kind of embroidery and the level of intricacy, so I decided to trust my gut and go with it. I think if I’d had more time or resources, I don't think I would have been as brave.”
- www.bustle.com/style/true-story-behind-anne-boleyn-costumes-according-to-lynsey-moore-costume-designer
The part I put in bold text is the most important here. FIVE WEEKS is all the time that was spent on pre-production... that is insane! Again, comparing to Becoming Elizabeth, that was announced in December of 2019 and was going to film in June 2020 before it was delayed to December due to the you know what, so it had at least six months (a year if we count the six month delay added on). In another interview, it has also been stated that Mark Stanley was cast a matter of weeks before filming.
Also, sorry this one came out quite late UK Time, had a load of last minute issues with internet and the UA-cam Creator Studio. There are one or two minor errors I have just noticed with grammar and spelling here and there as usual, but that sadly happens when you have large text in videos like I do. There are a few pictures as well I had to use to show events that don't quite match (for example, the 1511 joust image for the 1536 one) but that was due to a lack of suitable images for my needs so I went with something that was at least close to how it would have looked.
Thank you, Laughing Cavalier. You saved a bit of my life by making viewing this version exceedingly unsavory. Cheers from America.
Well I recently watched this movie only because my friends had it and I wanted to see it cuz I was thinking about making my own review of it.
The only kind of good things I can say about this movie was the fact I was at least a bit interested with Mary being in this.
I was just surprised seeing her that she was actually her and Anna had a quick talk although I wasn't that impressed by it.
Another thing I was really disappointed about was that she signed the papers at the very end right before she got executed thinking and she was going to a nunnery but really it was just a trick and she just got executed.
Before she sign those papers I was just really disappointed cuz I was going to say don't sign them don't sign them.
And what did she did she signed them.
I was never looking forward to this movie but I only watch it simply because if I'm going to review it I have to at least watch it first.
Anyway your reviews are great keep up the amazing work you do.
What I usually do on my other channel where it's basically all text on the screen is that I type it into Word and then paste it into the video. I have a sort of problem where I have difficulties to varrying degrees in spelling in all languages I speak, so I'm very conscious about that. I found that this method works for me. Maybe it could be something that you could try if it bothers you.
Redicuous that they made her black. Tacky as BRIDGERTON
Woke ass BS!
The costumes were so bland and strange. I don’t think I saw one jewel in the entire series! Why is Anne Boleyn, the Queen of England, dressed exactly like her ladies in waiting??
While watching "The Tudors", I went through the phase of admiring Anne, since I think with the script she was given, Natalie Dormer played her very well, both in cunning and cleverness that helped Anne rise to power, but also with her sensitivity and jealousy, that eventually blinded her from seeing the reality of her marriage to Henry VIII., leading to her downfall.
After growing up and reading more historians' books and essays on the actual historical characters of the era, I started having much more sympathy to Catherine of Aragon and even Anne of Cleves, over the Boleyns. Their stories are not of power-hunger above all else, but about in Catherine's case, of standing true to her faith and conscience, while in Anne's case, of being kind and supporting to those around her, even in the most unwelcome circumstances, which eventually pays off.
I think people want to make Henry's wives seem more independent, in order to display modern values on conservative societies of the past, not realising how it makes all this idea much weaker. If these women were all born fighters and headstrong, then they made the stupidest choice by marrying Henry VIII (especially Anne Boleyn, who had every choice from the start). I liked how "Tudors" showed Anne flawed and going more and more crazy about Henry's infidelity, because that seems thousands time more psychological portrayal of Anne Boleyn than Jodie Turner's character, ironically enough. "The Spanish Princess" is still the craziest historical drama for me, but Channel 5's "Anne Boleyn" is a close second. Unfortunately, given the direction it's going so far, we'll be seeing more and more period dramas going on a crusade about "female empowerment", while actual interesting female characters from history will be omitted, if they seem to "feminine" and kind, likeable or just human beings by this point. I'm still waiting for someone to do justice to Margaret Beaufort for once, she was a remarkable woman and much more complex than whatever Philippa Gregory thought her to be.
Exactly, by trying to "girlbossify" women's history, they are undermining the very stories they attempt to portray. At least we can take comfort in the fact that these dramas at least provide a gateway for people to pick up a book and get into the real history. Ironically enough, I probably owe my entire academic career to the Tudors, as it was my entry point into early modern history, spurring me to pick up some Antonia Fraser in my high school library.
@@TheBc99 Yeah, I only became a David Starkey fan because of "The Tudors", which he also criticized, because I wanted to know more. Similarly, after watching "The Borgias", I fact-checked it, because it was so unrealistic, I later did the same with "The White Queen" and it's continuations (but I stopped around second season of "The Spanish Princess, because it was all just so wrong and after reading about Catherine of Aragon, I felt insulted by this series a lot).
I'm now a fan of Ottoman history, also because of "Magnificent Century" show, because it also doesn't handle history very well, but rather than sexualising characters, it makes them all involved in a lot of petty drama or intrigues, which to be fair mostly are made up (maybe except the plot against Şehzade Mustafa, but even historians don't know how exactly Hürrem's fraction was involved in it). This things really made people look up Leslie Peirce's works, as well as others (Gülru Necipoğlu and Halil İnalcik to name a few), so that I think it sparked some better informed discussion about "Sultanate of women" and how it's not the intrigues, but cold, pragmatic politics involved, actually.
Anne boleyns ghost: I will haunt the makers of this atrocity for the rest of their days......
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👵👵👵👵👵🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
I hope not only Anne’s ghost, but Henry VIII’s, Jane Seymour’s, George Boleyn’s, and Jane Boleyn’s.
@@khfan4life365who cares about that twat that was Henry VIII. He is most definitely busy burning in hell or preparing places for craters of this atrocity.
That kiss is worse than any Phillipa Gregory’s work yet
Why did they add the kiss again, it gives me Spanish princess flashbacks, to when Elizabeth of York kissed Katherine of Aragon
Cavalier (After having taken power): The attempt on history has left me scared, but I assure you my resolve has never been stronger."
History lovers: (Mass applause)
Cavalier: "The time has come, execute Order 66."
History lover: "It will be done my Lord!"
If he ever gets power a lot of writers and producers are going to the next life on trumped up charges Tudor style
@@ryancarroll5488good Lord I hope so
Well, that was certainly horrifying to witness. As someone who has been dedicated to this period of history since the age of ten (seventeen years) and, despite being American, hell, I could do a hell of a better job at the helm of this production team. Sure, some creative embellishments are all right, but changing her race and actually having her lock lips with Jane Seymour?! Come on!! What was Channel 5 thinking?! Clearly, they weren't.
All channel 5 is concerned about is having people talk about them. All publicity is good publicity I guess in their eyes. Just don’t know why they felt that these two HIGLY religious women, in a 15 hundreds court in England were making out. If you wanna see Jane Seymour through the eyes of a man. Just show Henry’s point of view. A queen of England would NOT be locking lips with one of her ladies. Especially when she was executed for LESS. Horrible horrible writing.
Me too! I've been addicted snce I saw Young Bess on TNT in the 90s. I'm old. And I can't stand colorblind casting. It can work in something like fantasy or scifi that takes place in a world removed from our own, but in things like history, no. I always wonder how people who are so for colourblind casting would feel if Nelson Mandela was played by a white person? Absolutely no! And I'd be right there with them.
@@margaretwarren2103 Highly not HIGHY!!!
@@virginiagobetz9946 my bad, I will admit when I commented this I only had half a screen due to internal cracks so I’m surprised there isn’t another spelling mistake in there 😅😅
@@virginiagobetz9946 good looking out though g 🖤
Nothing more satisfying than after a long dull day than getting into bed and seeing Cavalier has a new video.
"So Eustace Chapuys is Spanish, right? How will the audience know that?"
"Uh...put enough eye shadow on him that he looks like a racoon?"
"And that means he's Spanish?"
"Maybe."
I just spent several minutes laughing giddy at the picture of an actual racoon in full Tudor regalia being taken deadly seriously by an outraged Keith Michelle playing Henry Viii
He looks like Rasputin tbh
Chapuys was actually French.
I don’t mind shitty movies/tv shows when they don’t claim to be anything other than entertainment, but when they keep on claiming “telling it from Anne’s POV” “showing the TRUE story” and stuff like that, it’s honestly offensive when they keep rambling bs, misinformation and myths.
Why even bother??
Ikr make historical fantasy if you want but leave the lives of real people out of it
And can we have a movie about anne of cleves or chatarine parr for once and how they both survived the king
8:57 "At least this Henry is probably better than the version we have to deal with in Spannish Princess" But Cavalier thats a bar so low it doesn't even require the effort of jumping.
I’m a huge Anne Boleyn fan but cannot endure this fantasy version.
The music in the Tudors used actual music from the time when it was used diagetically. I would have liked them to use it full time.
P. S. I don't know whether to refer to BARRY in the Wrath of Khan fashion or Fairly Odd Parents Fashion.
Also, on the point about having Anne staying in the same room as she did on her coronation and having a flashback: you may not need the flashback, you could have a character be in the room with Anne (perhaps Kingston upon leading her there) and then Anne could maybe talk about how she was here before, describing what it was like and through her voice perhaps hearing her sadness as she's wistfully comparing the two - maybe showing through her facial expressions and eyes (subtly, mind you, not the childish melodrama we see nowadays) like she's in a trance, seeing the room how it was, and we the audience can picture her former happiness for ourselves, while Kingston silently sympathises with her but does his solemn duty regardless. This would of course require a talented actress who could convey such complex emotions.
Thank you for including the cameo of the late, great Norm MacDonald. He is much missed.
Also, let's talk about the appalling costumes. Do we really think Anne's seamstresses were unable to fit her properly when she was pregnant? And that's just the beginning of the issues.
7:43 pm here, drunk as hell and this comes. My day is now complete.
If they are looking for a fresh view on the Tudor drama, why hasn't there been a series focusing on Cardinal Wolsey's perspective? That's would be more interesting than the nth time Anne Boleyn has been the focus. Also, curios why Japan has yet to make a Tudor anime.
Akio Otsuka would be a great fit as a Voice for Henry VIII.
Or even Jane Seymour's since she was a lady-in-waiting to both Catherine and Anne and it would be interesting to show her perspective in all this.
I haven't watched the series, and don't intend to - admittedly I'm not actually that interested in Tudor history, at least not as it's usually portrayed. But I am interested in who these real life figures were as individuals, as human beings. In that context, I'm interested in Anne Boleyn and boy, you don't even have to venture too far into her life story to immediately, and instinctually gather what a fascinating person she was. I strongly believe that extraordinary circumstances create extraordinary people.
Anne Boleyn is already intriguing enough without being so weirdly miscast, and misinterpreted, in this manner.
I also have to say I think it not only detracts from Anne's true struggles (racism and racial prejudice were not things Anne struggled with). But it's degrading and insulting to black people, because it arguably frames Anne's ethnicity as the cause of her downfall. To me it seems to say "Anne Boleyn was victimized and brutalized because she was black = black people are victims, who we ought to always pity". If I was black, I would honestly feel so outraged by that. And I would also feel so outraged by the fact that history has an abundance of incredible black leaders, artists, musicians, visionaries, writers, academics, philosophers, and revolutionary thinkers whose stories are generally left untold and unsung. Isn't it arguably racist, or at least dismissive of black history, to effectively say "if you want to expand your range as a black British actor, be prepared to try your luck at playing historical WHITE people"?
It would be just as easy to write a new story, celebrating and exploring the lives of real historical black people, as it would be to write a Tudor drama in which a black woman plays the lead role?
I just don't understand this liberal woke politically correct agenda. Which, when you examine it more closely, is derogatory, dismissive and saturated with its own special brand of racism.
I had some of the same feelings you did. I'm not sure what's going on with this, but it is not good.
*holds mirror up to see who you REALLY are*:
*turns out to be King Phillip Of Spain's daughter in surprisingly good disguise as a Royalist English nobleman from over a century later*
...okie dokie then
The moment we've been waiting for! Sir, you did not disappoint.
Can't wait for more of your videos to roll out, I've missed them!
- So yes, they would kiss on the lips as it is a common custom still in many other countries. However, it was a kiss that you might give your child (trying to think of a modern-day example), not what they were doing there where there is clearly passion in the kiss. A kiss between two people that weren't Romantically involved would have been short and sweet-a peck on the lips.
- I would say at least they didn't do to George what the Tudors did. He had an affair with Mark because he gifted him a book about marriage.
- I will say it again, the costumes are shit; if the French hood ever looked like that, Anne Boleyn would have been a fan of the English hood. No way in heck Anne would love the French hood if it were that horrible in appearance.
- I still think it would have been good to follow one of Catherine's servants. A woman being converted to Christianity and struggling with this new identity. It could make for a powerful story.
- there was no embodiment or jewelry at all "not to have any around the neckline" the dresses for covered with fur, patterns and jewelry, yet we saw none.
I never understood why George and Jane’s marriage is always portrayed as abusive or terrible. George merely received a book joking about marriage.
@@khfan4life365 not sure if it is linked but I think George's opinion on marriage might have been a reason. But I have doubt as that stuff was a bit more recent
@@POTO_Phan yeah, I did read that George was ambivalent towards marriage, but I don’t think he was a wife-beater like many of these so-called historical shows make him out to be. There wasn’t any proof that he was ever hostile to Jane.
The costumes looked like a high school production. I am hoping for the designer's sake that she had a very limited budget.
If I am rich, I'll make a movie called "Another movie about Anne Boleyn", in that movie I'll make a parody of every thrash movie about her, and looks like a cheap Mexican tv show, and I, a man will be the main character(a very nice inclusion), my favourite scene will be me(Anne), doing a key with my legs to Mary Tudor while Jane Seymour is crying in a corner
I'll pay for that scene
I’ll work on the set for free
My day has been made! A new Laughing Cavalier video!
A yes, my favorite historical figure, Thomas Smuggwell😍
I’m glad I missed it, as a huge royal history/ Tudor history fan I’ll stick to productions such as the 1970 six wives series, and the 1969 Anne of the thousand days both of which for example did a wonderful job portraying Anne’s story from the acting to the costumes etc… Also for the 2021 production WHY did they feel the need to have Anne kiss JANE SEYMOUR the woman who will eventually replace Anne as Queen as if they wanted to ship Anne and Jane as a couple seriously how does that make any sense.
So glad to see you uploading again Cavalier!
😁👍
This was a travesty, not only does it do a disservice to Anne Boleyn but also Jane Seymour and Jane Boleyn too. Shoving a person of colour into a real life person just to tick some boxes when there are plenty of real poc stories to be told, is ridiculous. I could forgive the costume mistakes but I cannot and won't forgive that. May the dead haunt them and stop them from doing future productions.
This is exactly why this bothers me. It just feels like condescension and exploitation, not actually caring about people of color. There are fantastic stories from cultures around the world. Why not do a movie or series about any of those instead?
I support making avant garde choices in art, presented as art, but they didn't do that here. They did that and then disingenuously presented it as "Anne's story".
It's not her story, it's an artistic response piece- it's the artist's story that is simply using that setting and those characters, and the actors themselves, as tools for the artist to express themself (himself? I can't remember who the creator is lol).
Which, again, would be fine if it was honestly presented as such. This is just dishonesty, and it pains me that the actors were possibly kind of manipulated into this situation, and used. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but the fact is that many times actors are pressured to sign on to something before even a full script is presented to them. After they've committed, they are really locked in, legally, and cannot get out of it without dire consequences. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened and the actors and crew were just trying to be professional and classy and positive about the whole messed up thing.
Did you mean a black person. What is a 'person of colour' ffs? Is that someone who looks like a rainbow or is white not an actual colour anymore, despite it often having many more variations of 'colour'. The fact you fell into a commie woke trap just shows you're just as guilty of this escape from reality and real language as the rest of these idiots. Sorry. A nice true but ultimately an F.
@gengirl830 'people of colour' oh please. What's the new name for white ppl then, those of no colour. Obviously another young person dragged through the 'inclusion and diversity' (anything but) of the modern education system.
Glorious way to start the morning here in Australia 👏👏👏 Thank you 🙏 🤗💕
This is the first video of yours I've seen. You truly crack me up. Excellent review!
Anne did rip her uncle up verbally, seriously once old Norfolk complained to King Henry that she, Anne had used words to him; Norfolk that he, Norfolk would not have used to a dog. She got that trait from her old man. Thomas Boleyn was thought haughty and over proud.
Thank you for the self inflicted torture of viewing so we don’t have to. Well done.
Anne and Jane kissing like lovers? No, just no. Worst plot since George Boleyn being gay in the Tudors 🤦♀️
God, I've been waiting for this since our talk on Twitter xD
Amazing job, remember to take it easy for a while after this 🌺
me: (having a long list of Things To Do)
The Laughing Cavalier: *uploads new video*
me: Screw this, time for tea, snacks and Cavalier.
P.S.
Excuse me, old bean, what do you think on BBC's "Charles II: The Power & the Passion"?
Knowing that it has Rufus Sewell, the man who looks at you like you're something stuck at his shoe, it might be interesting, but Charles II? Probably, Mathew Bayton from Horrible Histories might be the better Charles II?
19:10-19:14
me: *visually sweat drops appearing*
The costumes look really bad. Anne Boleyn was a fashionable woman. She would have worn all sorts of beautiful dresses with embellishments and jewels. Same with her ladies in waiting.
My first thought when seeing the trailer was that the ladie's dresses were so plain compared to what we've seen in portraits from that era
Lola Petticrew is obviously bullshitting about the kiss, we all know it was only put in there as a cheap excuse to fetishize wlw
Also it’s really not hard to make good Tudor gowns, I don’t think the designer for this even tried considering the silhouette looks Rococo/Georgian with barely a hint of Tudor (Jane Seymours pink dress is a great example of how much they failed)
I know what you mean, as a lesbian The idea that she was trying to see Jane through the male gaze by kissing her feels like such a slap in the face.
And yes, Cavalier, we member
So glad I discovered your channel. Your take on the Tudor shows are very much enjoyed. That being said, I pray Hollywood or someone make a true to history story of Henry, his wives and his children. Tired of the over the top portrayals and casting supermodels as a middle aged Henry. PS I was going to watch The Spanish Princess and the other ones, but you talked me out of it...Thank You !
Mom pick me up im scared
Nothing infuriates me more than when a costume designer isn’t willing to draw from the time period when working on a period piece and instead tries to do a ‘modern’ take on it
It begs the question, why are they even working on a period piece if they aren’t even willing to be authentic to the time period? It’s so disheartening that every other production seems to hate historical authenticity and would prefer to modernise the costumes (and they don’t even look good, half the time as well!)
Even though I'm not A big fan of Empress Sissi; I would rather watch A drama series on her.
But PLEASE finally an accurate one. One, which depicts her deeply neurotic side, her pathological obsession with beauty, her unlucky marriage with Franz Joseph, her unwillingness to fulfill her duties as Empress and most importantly, the long and deep depressions she suffered from during the last years of her life, especially after the suicide of her son Rudolf. Portaying her as a fairy tale princess does injustice to her real story.
@@untruelie2640 I agree.
@@untruelie2640 I think the German musical "Elisabeth das Musical" is doing her some justice
@@AryaDrago I would actually like to ses A film or drama series on her.
This comment, I must admit, I off the topic of this particular video. I am currently watching the limited series Gunpowder on HBOMax (about the gunpowder plot against King James I). I would love to see you do a video comparing it to history as to historical accuracy. May I say I do love your videos. Thank you so very much for the time and energy that you put into them.
Me: sees the Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour kiss
The historian in me: WTF that makes no sense this is a homophobic society, that would be a big deal.
The feminist in me: WTF that makes no sense, also stop cheapening wlw relationships by implying that one of the characters is doing it to understand her male husband's attraction.
The lesbian in me: Pretty women kissing!!! 😍
Well done Cavalier, and thank you for sparing the pain of watching this abomination. Now I know just how bad it was👍👍👍
Whose crazy idea was it to make Anne Boleyn black? SHE WASN'T BLACK!
The more dramas of Anne Boleyn, the less important she seems.
As delighted as I am that a beautiful, talented black actress like Jodie Turner-Smith has the opportunity to play Anne Boleyn, Anne Boleyn wasn’t black.
The cavalier is back!
Now he shall once again retreat into the shadows of suffering and torment to suffer through more terrible historical dramas. Or just watch anime instead. xD
@@Azdaja13 Indeed!
It was Norris not Weston who referred to having his head cut off after Anne Boleyn jokingly told him he looks for dead mens shoes.......that if anything were to happen to the king that Norris would look to have Anne, and it was this overheard misconstrued conversation that had Anne charged with treason. Cromwell was able to make much more of this flirtatious exchange than what was actually meant.
I've got a great idea.
Let's remake " Zulu", with the entire cast being Chinese.
And female.
It's no sillier that having a black Boleyn.
Great video, but I live for the Tommy Wiseau references.
@The Laughing Cavalier man, you're fast
*Thank you!* For being so brave to tell the truth.
It’s not sexist or racist to be upset by inaccuracy in a show based on real historic figures; altering history is irresponsible, it teaches falsehoods
I watched for the hell of it but as a history lover it’s kinda irking especially when it took me YEARS to actually admit and somewhat admire Anne Boleyn for a woman who was ahead of her time to see her black washed. Especially when there was a historical black presence in Tudor England im sure they could have made a a story around the time of Anne if they wanted a black presence. And the Jane Seymour thing….imma cringe the same way spanish princess had Elizabeth of York do a threatmantic(?) kiss on Katherine and that starz show blew everything left so yeaaah Anne Boleyn 2021 was a…..interesting ride
good god how did this not show up in my feed??? I had deleted the show from my mind or so I thought but your comment earlier responding to me fired it all back and my gods still so bad .... ugh
Great video Cavalier! Do you know when Becoming Elizabeth will be out? I'm excited for that series!
Romola Garai in a recent interview said it would be out in April, but we have had no official confirmation thus far.
Can we get a review of HBO's Elizabeth from 2005?
One day you will, I have a script for a Quick Review of it lying around somewhere.
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier HUZZAH!
We brought Anna of Cleves to life. In a 3D movie, as an hologram and as an animated augmented reality model, ua-cam.com/video/ZmCxOIgMqnw/v-deo.html, and we can do the same for all the other Tudors.
3:19
The way my jaw dropped…
This should have been called try not to cringe. 🤣
Why can't they just make a tv series about an actual African queen who was black? Preferably one who doesn't end up losing her head.
There was *a lot* of “aww hell no’s” said while I watched this last night. But, what is psychologically thrilling part of this show? What that the actors didn’t snicker and cringe through their lines?
TLC watched this mess so we don't have to. Thank you!
Speaking of bad Anne Boleyn documentaries, have any of you heard the one called Blood, Sex, and Royalty that’s on Netflix? It’s about Anne Boleyn and the Tudor court. They use modern slang and music. Watching it was just as painful as this “documentary”.
I'd love a review of that one! I don't have that channel and as a Anne Boleyn purist I'd like to see if there is any good in it.
@@JaneEasterbrook-bn3ux don’t watch it. It’s utterly painful. They use modern slang and music, which breaks the immersion and just sounds cringe.
@@khfan4life365 Right, I won't! Anne Boleyn deserves better!
Would love to see you review the charge of the light brigade (1968) severely underrated film that gets very little attention
I read a fun fact about that film once. The costumes/uniforms are very accurate with the exception of the Light Brigade all having red trousers (only one Hussar regiment had red trousers, the rest had dark blue like their tunics). Apparently this was the director's decision and it was nearly worst. He wanted to have the British Foot Guards in blue tunics as well (!) Luckily, the costume designer threatened to resign if the Guards were not allowed to wear their red coats so he got his way there at least!
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier my favourite thing about the film is the British officers uniforms, also why on earth would you have the foot guards in blue tunics????
1:18 Cause of death: Cuteness attacks from anime :P
We need more creative approaches to Anne Boleyn. If Bert I. Gordon did this it would be GREAT!. Queen Anne would grow into a 50 ft. giant, demolish downtown London and then go north to fight the Lochness monster.
Great review.
That painting of Thomas Cranmer at 20:44, do you think that pattern on the arms of the chair are just carved wood, or inlaid mother of pearl? I’ve never noticed it before.
🙂🙂🙂 keith Michell is the best Henry of all time, undoubtedly !! 😉😉😉
The tudor period is just getting so messy I need a break.
I might skip to the Stuart dramas, they seem safe from all this madness... For now.
"Not that it has deterred them"
Nec Aspera Terrent, amirite?
I was thinking what I'd like to see of this many times chewed bone, the Tudor period. I would love to see a story about the reformation. Or is it just me, because I'm so interested in religious history?
Oh, John Wayne as Genghis Khan was absolutely atrocious, but I still enjoy the hell out of The Conqueror, regardless.
Why does every Tudor drama struggle with French hoods or hoods in general? Is it really that difficult to make a crescent with jewels and a black veil? Why do they always make them look like very cheap tiaras? And why the actresses don't wear them constantly? They make it as if it was normal for a woman at that time to not wear the hood sometimes, like it was a bow or a brooch. The hood wasn't simply an ornament, it was a religious custom, like the hijab is for muslims.
Like the Inpector Dreyfus introduction.
This is exactly what happens when your focus is diversity and inclusion and not on things that are actually important like acting and writing.
The whole failure of this 'diversity and inclusion' is that it's anything but.
3:22 NAUR why is this so funny 😭😭😭
I didn't hate this show but the death of the horse was traumatic. Like why? Even people with only a passing knowledge of history know what happened to Anne.
The Cavalier Lives! Long live the Cavalier
*A film so cancerous it literally caused cancer.*
Okay. That was good.
I know this is off topic but what's the name of the intro tune for all of your videos, the tune sounds familiar but I'm drawing a blank to the name.
'Here's a Health Unto His Majesty'
Meanwhile Bridgerton lurks in the corner…
4:10 NORM, YES!
I'm going to create a new version that's never been told....."Ann Boleyn and the Communist Mutants From Outer Space"........
Thank you for watching this so we don't have to.
The moment Anne became black, I made the decision not to watch a second of it. I realize there won't be total historical accuracy but this was so blatantly false.
Hmm shadow house clip huh. You should read the manga of that, it's rly great!
I have read it, shame they haven't done an official English translation yet.
@@The_Laughing_Cavalier true... But you gotta be honest Rosemary do be thicc >.> rip
I am not going to lie to me the costume was really look like they're not even complete.
They look like they're in the bases for someone who is just starting out on making the clothing or practicing and just literate the pieces on to try the former shape of how it it's going to look when it's complete but not in the form it's in right now.
I do think there's a nuanced discussion to be had here about race-blind (or "race-conscious") casting, and when it can or can't work, as well as the genuine problem with lack of diversity in period dramas. When it comes to the first issue, it's been common practice in many theater productions to do race-blind casting for a long time now, and the audience is able to suspend disbelief and just enjoy the performance. I do think there are lots of factors to think about here - for example, is it easier to do this with fictional characters than with actual historical figures? (I personally think so.) Does it work better onstage than onscreen? Does it work better in certain types of stories - for example, those that are more 'stylized' and not really going for pure accuracy?
I definitely don't think we should just dismiss the concept entirely, as it can be totally valid and work well in a production, and give opportunities to actors who wouldn't get a chance at these roles otherwise. There just needs to be some thought put into it.
The second issue is that the assumption that period dramas = all white people truly does need to die. Totally erasing the presence of actual PoC in Tudor England in basically every Tudor production ever made (with the exception of - I die inside to say this - The Spanish Princess, as badly as they did it) is in its way just as inaccurate as making Anne Boleyn Black, and yet you almost never see it called out as such. I personally would very much like to see the stories of more of these actual historical PoC told and included, like the example of John Blanke you suggested.
So I think casting choices like this one are trying to counter-balance a genuine problem that does exist, that period dramas historically have been and often continue to be aggressively all-white, often when there's no reason they needed to be. Is this the solution I personally would go for? Not really. But I understand the context in which it happens and what it's trying to make up for. I do think that needs to be part of the discussion, too.
Then why not make a film or tv show about an actual PoC who live during these times?
For me a period drama made up of all white casts, when the characters and setting clearly call for it, is totally fine. Excluding PoC simply to exclude is the problem, but that isn't the case when telling the story of real life historic white people, just as having an all black cast for a period piece about real life historic black people.
But of course, I believe for a historical period piece based on real people, one should attempt to cast actors that resemble the real life person (I'm still grumpy about the random old guy they had portraying Horatio Seymour in Lincoln).
And yeah, it is exclusionary. If I were an actor, I wouldn't expect to have an opportunity to portray Barack Obama or LeBron James... that'd just be silly.
Unfortunately, the untold stories of amazing PoC remain untold because they don't have the name recognition.
@@MartinWenzelYT Yep, your opinion is very close to mine. I think the casting should reflect the reality of what these places actually looked like. When you're casting people who historically were white, I personally think it makes the most sense to cast actors who are also white. Not only because they look like the historical figure, but also because the fact that these people were white Europeans is an integral fact of their lives, and had they in fact been PoC their lives would almost certainly have gone very differently.
But that said, there were also real PoC who are part of European history and they shouldn't be erased, nor should we pretend Europe was 100% made up of white people up until 100 years ago, when that obviously isn't the case. So reflecting the historical reality means understanding both of those things, IMO.
@@Luanna801 sure, and that goes into expanding the stories told...instead of just reimagining
I for one do not appreciate scenes with WLW being added for shock factor to a straight audience. The LGBT community wasn't created in 2010, and there is no reason not to actually look for the few mentioned people in history and write about them or create a premise about fictional characters from our community. The explanation for it by Lola was honestly offensive; 'seeing the male gaze through the female gaze' first of all does not make sense and second of all just sounds like our existence is solely here for and because of men.
Especially since they could do actual historical LGBT peoples but that would take effort and nuance and taking a risk and we know Hollywood doesn’t do that.
I'm actually fine with the colour-conscious casting (though that is a rather ridiculous term for it, but whatever), but your review fortunately seems to focus mainly on all the rest that could and should have been done better if they wanted to live up to their own brief for the series.
I can actually also forgive a rushed costume department - and possibly set department as well - though the producers who opted for that rush have a bit more explaining to do. And bad writing for a Tudor drama? I mean, doesn't the period almost write the drama itself? You have vivid characters ready-made, plot-twists and denouements aplenty, and basically all the writers have to do is not mess about with it too much.
(Or, of course, mess about with it completely and set in on a 1970s council estate if they really don't care for historical details. I mean, I'd probably watch that and not mind, because at least it would be honest about only taking the historical events as a plot guideline only, so liberties would be clearly understood and expected.)
The lighting was a travesty
Can you do a review of Charles II: the passion and the power?
im not even as mad that they messed up the casting as I am with the plot, I mean the tudor period is literally so interesting and somehow this is so boring and dry. if they just stuck with the real history it would be much more successful.
O o o o here’s a poll: Would you rather be forced to watch Anne Boleyn AMC or the Spanish Princess?
My answer: The Spanish Princess.
Stunt Casting mocks the minorities that it's supposedly meant to uplift. Why do so few people understand this?
Ok so having watched this serise when it came out i have to say this has got to be one of worst historical TV shows or movies i've watched, it made the historian in me die a little bit watching it and i have even more sympathy for Cavalier now having to watch shows that are even worse. And no please God no don't do it Channel Five do not make the Catherine Howard one please.
I’m never tired of hearing about hoods, especially in rant form 👍
22:28 - basically they’re saying they’ve insulted all the existing fans of this part of history, so now they’re looking for a new community of fans to insult.