In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« The Tudors
Episode Recap: Season 2, Episode 9
These bloody days have broken my heart.
My lust, my youth did them depart,
And blind desire of estate.
Who hastes to climb seeks to revert.
Of truth, circa Regna tonat.
-Sir Thomas Wyatt
At least out of the carnage came the beautiful poem V. Innocentia Veritas Viat Fides Circumdederunt me inimici mei, the full text of which can be found here. Unfortunately, to get it, we had to say goodbye to Messrs. Smeaton, Boleyn, Norris and Brereton, while Thomas ("I'm the only who's guilty!) Wyatt, and Thomas Boleyn have to live with the knowledge that most of their allies are dead due to false accusations of treason. Well, Wyatt is in a peculiar position because we never really got a true sense of whose side he was on, or if he was even on any side. He simply loved Anne and now knows that she's going to be killed. I believe in reality he wrote the poem after her death, and not before, but it was a beautiful contrast to the gruesome imagery of beheadings and blood spurting.
This outcome was inevitable after Anne's second miscarriage last week. Had she not lashed out at Henry, accusing him of causing it by "wenching" with Jane Seymour, maybe she would have lasted a bit longer than she did. But it seems that Henry considers himself above reproach in all facets of life; his inability to have a son with his first wife didn't cause him to run to Anne — it was witchcraft! And now that Anne also can't give him a (living) son, she must be poison personified. It's incredible to watch someone with such ego refuse to take any responsibility. However, if he truly does believe that God has chosen him, how can he be fallible? Taking that thought to its logical conclusion gives him the assumption that a deformed fetus couldn't possibly be his, and so those long-standing rumors of infidelity were finally investigated. In the context of this show, however, we can't discount Anne's blaming him as a real catalyst, if he truly believes he is beyond reproach.
But back to this week, and the four poor souls who were beheaded. I must admit that at first I was confused by Brereton. I thought he'd loudly, and rapidly protest the idea that he'd have slept with Anne, and that he'd call in Chapuys as a character witness ("No, really! We were plotting to kill her! I swear!"). And then, with a great thud, I realized he'd decided to go out a martyr to his cause by utterly destroying the King's faith in Anne.
It wasn't shocking that George's wife turned on him, though I was surprised that no one brought up his relationship with Smeaton as further proof of his allegedly deranged nature. Smeaton's torture was excruciating to watch (and that scream that came out of his mouth when he was on the rack — truly bloodcurdling), so death may have been a respite for him. On the other hand, I was unmoved to see Norris go, as we mostly just knew him as a guy who had his eye on Anne. He was an underdeveloped character and his death, while tragic for him, wasn't very resonant.
Thomas Boleyn's true torture had to have been listening to Anne's reaction to George's death. His semi-stoic reaction was not so much honorable as disturbing. Here's someone who knows his whole family is basically slaughtered and all because of his own greed. It's hardly surprising, given his conduct over the last two seasons, but I suppose I thought we'd see one moment of sheer emotion.
By contrast, Anne was all emotion, all the time. Her keening at her brother's death was so frustrating and despondent, it made me realize just how much I'm going to miss Natalie Dormer's wonderful portrayal next season. Alternately accepting and disbelieving, she knows she's getting the really, really raw end of the deal and should serve as a great warning to Jane Seymour, who's family seems to want to take the same path to power as the Boleyns did.
See you all back here next week for the grand denouement. Will we see a compassionate side to Cromwell? Will Henry feel as bad about Anne as he did about Sir Thomas More? Will Jane's brother realize he's the spitting image of Anthony Andrews in Brideshead Revisited (seriously, Google it)? Only time will tell!
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
May 25, 2008 9:55 PM
|
Thanks for the recap, Leah and welcome back.
The earlier part of this episode was Anne's blunder with the Ambassador of France, first enlisting his help and then, upon (the decidedly bad advice of others) humiliating him in public.
Poor Anne, she thought that being Queen meant she had power. She forgot that she had none: only a virtual power that depended on the King's favor. It was, after all, a man's world (I will resist any analogies to our present political landscape).
And what a "judicial system!" Madge is browbeaten to confess unseemly behavior by the Queen. Poor Smeaton--with that torture (did anyone else get a migraine watching that knot tear apart his eye! Ouch!!), anyone would have confessed to anything. Did anyone hear that "pop" when his joints came out, which was when you heard his blood curdling scream?
And what was that all about when King Henry accused Anne of being pregnant by Sir Henry (huh?). Gotta love the King's English when he accuses George and Thomas Wyatt of having "carnal knowledge" of Anne. Certainly sounds more refined than using f---, which the King used repeatedly.
Charles again used as a glorified messenger boy, and then as a sounding board, but doing little else. What a waste of a wonderful actor and character.
One thing you did not mention, Leah, was that it was Sir Thomas--whose machinations set all this in place--who ultimately betrayed his daughter, accepting the charges against her while protesting his innocence. All I could think was, "what a p---k!"
Loved Cromwell's line to the Archbishop (who to his credit, was actually shaken and saddened by all the events): "Sometimes to defeat evil, one must consort with the devil!" And again, I say, "huh?" (And again, I will refrain from making any analogies with our present political landscape!)
It was true historically that Thomas Wyatt was originally accused, and the only one eventually exonerated. But I loved his line: "But I am the only one who is guilty!" and his poem (thanks for citing it, Leah, and for sending us the link to it), cited in the midst of all that carnage.
How ironic that the money that Smeaton was spending was more due to his love affair with George, and that it was this love--not to the queen directly--that led to his death.
In one of the historical sources I read, it is said that Anne maintained a dignified stance until almost the end, when she collapsed and went into hysterical weeping. I guess it is this that the waning scenes wanted to depict.
I was totally repulsed by the child upon whom the blood spurted as she watched the beheadings. I kept thinking of the child warnings we have in programs to protect young viewers against violence on TV; too bad they did not have some equivalent sensibility during Henry's time. Such a child would be scarred for life!
As for Henry, I don't feel at all sorry for this spoiled, pusillaminous, ego-centric king who would think himself as infallible as god, and act as childish as a 5 year old throwing a cosmic tantrum. He can go about "wenching" but execute his wife for doing the same, when in reality she was faithful to him all along.
Bloody times indeed!
|
|
May 26, 2008 9:09 AM
|
Overall, I was quite impressed by this episode.
The torture of Smeaton was so painful to watch. First, the pressure on his eye and then being tied to the rack. Yes, anyone would confess when faced with that. Ouch! However, his confession did not match up. According to history the date which he stated he had relations with her was a date at which he and Anne were in two different parts of the country. However, everything I have read states that Smeaton was the only one of the four men who confessed.
I was surprised when they showed Brereton confessing as well. Also, according to history the date in which he supposedly had relations with Anne was a date in which she would have still been in seclusion after the birth of Elizabeth.
The four men were also accused of sodomy with each other as well. From what I understand George was a known womanizer and it is unlikely that he engaged in any relations with men. Some people disagree, but I happen to believe that his portrayal as a homosexual is incorrect. But it makes good TV. 
I did know that George's wife, Jane Parker, would be one of the confessors as well. However, at her death she stated that none of it was true.
I haven't watched episode 10 yet, but am excited to see how they portray the rest of this part of the story. If they stay true to history at all, Anne's uncle should be making an appearance in the episode.
|
|
May 26, 2008 9:55 AM
|
From what I understand George was a known womanizer and it is unlikely that he engaged in any relations with men. Some people disagree, but I happen to believe that his portrayal as a homosexual is incorrect. But it makes good TV.
That it does, MissBeth. Thanks for the historical info. It is always interesting to see where the series is being faithful to historical fact, and where it deviates for "creative effect."
Like you, I was initially surprised at Brereton's confession, until he got this look in his eye and eagerly confessed. I realized then, as Leah comments above, "And then, with a great thud, I realized he'd decided to go out a martyr to his cause by utterly destroying the King's faith in Anne." It was the perfect "assassination attempt" on his behalf, for God and the Pope (who probably did not even remember that the poor man existed!).
As for next week's season ender, I am not sure if I am looking forward to it, or cringing.
|
|
May 27, 2008 7:51 AM
|
Carnage. Yes, that would be a very apt description for this episode. THE MOST bloodiest and tortuous one for the entire series. I'll be honest and and admit, I closed my eyes during Smeaton's torture, and yes, ff'd'd it, because I couldn't stand it. At least in Bravheart, when they had William on the rack, all we heard was the turning of the wheel!
mdaily: "It was true historically that Thomas Wyatt was originally accused, and the only one eventually exonerated."
So. That widdle bit o' tidbit is the reason for him being in the credits this season? blah. Uncle of Anne's shouldn't have been left out, imho.
MissBeth:"From what I understand George was a known womanizer and it is unlikely that he engaged in any relations with men. Some people disagree, but I happen to believe that his portrayal as a homosexual is incorrect. But it makes good TV."
It definitely does! And now I'm wondering if Smeaton was a homosexual.
MissBeth: "I did know that George's wife, Jane Parker, would be one of the confessors as well. However, at her death she stated that none of it was true.
I haven't watched episode 10 yet, but am excited to see how they portray the rest of this part of the story. If they stay true to history at all, Anne's uncle should be making an appearance in the episode."
Very interesting. I guess I'm going to have to do some rethinking about Anne, then. But yes, Natalie gave some VERY powerful performances in this episode, as well as last week's and SO deserves an Emmy. I'm hoping we'll still get to see her in flashbacks next season, though, as with More, but from how the season ended (courtesy of ON DEMAND, lol), I doubt it.
Well, I could tell you whether Anne's uncle makes an appearance or not...IF you want to know. 
What puzzled me was the arrest of Thomas Boleyn. Did that really happen? I thought mdaily? mentioned in previously that both Anne's father and uncle were among her accusors?
And I'm in the minority: The minute that bumbling idiot Brereton readily admitted to having relations with the Queen, I knew that he said it because it would be the ONLY way to mar her reputation, and die a Martyr, knowing he had a hand in her downfall.
Witchcraft, indeed. [insert rolling eyes]
Like mdaily, I also am starting to detest, no, I DO detest Henry. But she said it poifectly: "As for Henry, I don't feel at all sorry for this spoiled, pusillaminous, ego-centric king who would think himself as infallible as god, and act as childish as a 5 year old throwing a cosmic tantrum. He can go about "wenching" but execute his wife for doing the same, when in reality she was faithful to him all along."
~Sangeeta
|
|
May 27, 2008 8:06 AM
|
Yes, that was definitely gruesome, especially Mark's torture and when Henry Norris was executed and the bloody spurted everywhere. Definitely a bloody time in England's history. And they call Henry's daughter "Bloody Mary" - seems her father is equally deserving of the appelation.
Historians seem to go back and forth on whether or not George was a homosexual. The producers probably felt it made for better TV to go in that direction.
As for Mark, not much is really known about him historically that I've found other than he was a Flemish musician and his role in Anne's downfall, mostly because of his confession. He was the only one of the four tortured in real life because he was the only one who wasn't of noble birth. He probably made a convenient lover for George since not much is known about him.
I thought, in addition to Henry Norris, they should have fleshed out Jane Boleyn more. In reality, she and George married around 1524-1525, so they should have included her in the first season so we could see her motivations for what she did - either a pattern of cruelty from George or her slowly going insane. It seemed like they just threw in that scene with her asking Anne's help and being rebuffed so that it looks like she was simply acting out of spite (which I could certainly understand in George's case, but not Anne's). Of course, she will eventually have to pay the piper as well...wonder if they're going to get that far in Season 3?
Speaking of season 3, I wonder what years are going to be covered? As far as Henry's matrimonial history goes, nothing really happens between Oct 1537 (Edward's birth/Jane's death) and 1540, when he married wife #4. Unless they're going to compress time some or skip several years in the telling. Or we're going to get an entire season of Henry wenching with random women.
|
|
May 27, 2008 11:53 AM
|
|
I am confused, okay, I have been watching this on demand rather than in person, but my on demand referred to this as the season finale and it seemed like it. What with the staring of Elizabeth at the lesson she was learning (conversation between governess and maid about finding a rich husband who cares nothing of politics) and the last scene of Henry and the goose and finally looking a bit like the Henry VII we are familarity with (like my big thought was I forget who gives him the son, who actually straightens things out in his short reign and have they convinced Myers to put on some weight)
|
|
May 27, 2008 12:30 PM
|
Kate2777: That was the season finale you saw. The episode being discussed here, would be no. 19 on Demand, and not 20.
Just watch 19 and all your confusion will dissipate.
~Sangeeta
|
|
May 27, 2008 2:21 PM
|
Sangeeta: Well, I could tell you whether Anne's uncle makes an appearance or not...IF you want to know.
Do I want to know, do I want to know?
TraceyJean: They should have fleshed out Jane Boleyn more...or [shown] her slowly going insane.
Did she actually go insane? I wouldn't be surprised. At least the way he has been portrayed in the show, George was one sick puppy of a guy. He could be so kind and warm to his sister, or be cold and cruel to her, and also be sadistic towards his wife. And all the way, he was pining for a man from whom he seemed to be growing distant. Thomas Boleyn, on the other hand, was very clear: he was greedy for power.
Sangeeta: both Anne's father and uncle were among her accusors
I can't recall if the article I read at the time indicated that they were arrested, but at least in the show, Thomas does betray his daughter in a pathetic attempt to distance and spare himself from her fate. Talk about "Daddy dearest." Too bad all we have is Sir Henry and not the Duke of Norfolk of last season. I have a feeling that he would have acted out Machiavellian and betrayal very nicely!
|
|
May 27, 2008 7:47 PM
|
mdaily: "Do I want to know, do I want to know?"
Well??? Do Ya? doyadoyadoyaaa????
Well, if I recall, I remember when I was reading from the Tudor site (not this series, but to get historical information), it was reported that the Duke of Norfolk, and that Pearce guy (who Anne supposedly had married in secret (and shown in The Other Boleyn Girl) were among her accussors during her trial, which this series didn't show. I don't remember if her father was among them.
Either way, Nick Dunning has done a FABULOUS job of portraying the greedy, grasping father.
~Sangeeta
|
|
May 27, 2008 7:57 PM
|
Well??? Do Ya? doyadoyadoyaaa????
Still thinking, still thinking...
Okay, I do want to know, but I don't want to spoil it for others on this site. So, I'll wait until next week's blog. Darn! 
Either way, Nick Dunning has done a FABULOUS job of portraying the greedy, grasping father.
I agree. He really ratcheted up his game when the Duke left the stage, so to speak. I still regret that Henry Cavill (Charles) has been so under-used this season.
As for TraceyJean's concern: As far as Henry's matrimonial history goes, nothing really happens between Oct 1537 (Edward's birth/Jane's death) and 1540, when he married wife #4., I have a feeling that we will certainly see a lot of action with this Henry the VIII, and with Charles and others.
I will try to catch episode 10 before Sunday and be here to share the juicy details with all of you next posting.
Come to think of it, whatever will be do until next season!
Oh yeah, that means that Dexter is around the corner. Heh heh.![]<img border=](http://community.tvguide.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif) ">
|
|
May 27, 2008 9:05 PM
|
mdaily: "Okay, I do want to know, but I don't want to spoil it for others on this site. So, I'll wait until next week's blog. Darn!"
Well...FINE!!!!
As for what to do till next season? Why, I'll be playing Softball, going to the gym, and watching Incredible Hulk, the Dark Knight, my DVD's...
~Sangeeta
|
|
May 27, 2008 9:12 PM
|
|
Good episode. I've always detested Henry. In fact I didn't want to watch a series on him, but Maria Doyle Kennedy sucked me in. I've detested Henry since the first season, how he treated his wife Katherine. Plus this season, how he treats not only Anne, but his daughter Mary. What a pig, lol. Jane Seymour boars me, I don't know how I'll watch next season without Moore, Katherine and Anne. Who knows, I'm sure they'll spice it up.
|
|
May 27, 2008 9:51 PM
|
I'm sure they'll spice it up.
Hi Ladyofthelake. With Henry being single, at least for a while, I am sure they will have him "wenching" for a bit on-screen. Though, the writers and actors did such a great job in creating this on-screen chemistry between Henry and Anne, poor Jane does seem a bit wishy-washy in comparison. I wonder if this is intentional, and that they plan to move it quickly onto wife #4? Gotta say, Rhys-Meyers seems to click better on-screen with brunettes than with blondes.
Hey, Sangeeta, if you haven't caught onto the amazing-ness that is Dexter, check it out On Demand. Like the Tudors, I caught up with it during a summer season lull, and just fell in love with it. It wasn't until I watched it that I understood why so many people raved about it. The acting is superb and it just keeps you on your toes. Also, this summer: Mad Men and the various "characters welcome" on USA, including the new series starting next Sunday. I like quirky, and USA has just about cornered the market on it.
|
|
May 27, 2008 10:14 PM
|
I can't remember where I read it, but Season 3 will tell the stories of wives 3 and 4. Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves. Maybe during Season 3 we will see Jane Parker's character fleshed out a bit more. I was also disappointed that we didn't see more of her this season or get a more clear understand of why she did what she did.
Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to comment on Season 3. I'm not sure I'll have Showtime next year. Sad....
|
|
May 27, 2008 10:22 PM
|
|
|
