The Tudors – England’s most notorious royal dynasty scandalized the princely courts of their day by embodying political intrigued, debauchery and scandal. But will this 16th century dysfunctional family still command the attention it once enjoyed? Showtime is betting on it.
The Tudors is an ambitious attempt to bring the politics, sex and scandal of the ancient House of Tudor to the TV audiences of today. The series begins by introducing the young and impetuous Henry VIII – this version of Henry VIII channels a rock star persona with a flair for over the top theatrics. The historic Henry VIII was recorded to be a formidable personality and this comes through in the Henry that is portrayed in the series. Yet the actor who portrays Henry VIII (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) is clearly meant to present the character as a sex symbol to the point of compromising the historical relevance of the series – former fashion model Jonathan Rhys Meyer looks nothing like the Henry of history.
In its first episode the audience is also introduced to Henry’s wife, queen Katherine of Aragon. By birth Katherine is a Spanish princess interestingly enough she is also revealed to be the widow of Henry’s older brother Arthur who had died shortly after his marriage to her. The circumstances behind Katherine and Henry’s marriage provides for a dynamic which almost seems to reference the plots of contemporary soap operas – a marriage of convenience.
“My father didn’t want to lose the prestige of a Spanish marriage,” said Henry bitterly to his confessor – a scene shown in the first episode. It is clear Henry resents Katherine for her perceived inability to produce a boy which causes her great anguish. He goes as far as to suggest that God is punishing him for marrying his brother’s widow by denying the couple an heir. These elements of the story not only make for an interesting dynamic within the series but also ring true from what we know from history. The Tudors series has thus far been truthful to the historical depiction of Katherine. History portrays the queen as a devout Catholic and wife, haunted by her inability to bear a son – so far TV audiences have encountered this Katherine.
The first scene of the first episode depicts someone being stabbed to death by a group of men in the open courtyard of the Ducal Palace at Urbino, Italy. The scene channels the death of Julius Caesar – the man staggers to the center of a sun lit courtyard falling on a pool of his own blood. The victim turns out to be Henry’s uncle and his murderers turn out to be agents of France. Amidst this murder the audience is introduced to key players within the royal court.
This act of aggression by France serves only as a back drop to the scandals and the political intrigue unfolding at the royal palace. In the first episode Henry VIII is first introduced to audiences in an attention grabbing scene – he’s having sex with a very attractive blonde. One doesn’t assume that the young woman with the king is his wife because the nature of the scene doesn’t lend itself to that interpretation – maybe it was her lack of queenly demeanor. It is later revealed that the young blonde is the Lady Blout a lady-in-waiting to the queen. Clearly The Tudors were intent on making a good first impression on audiences by showcasing the main elements responisble for their historic notoriety – violence and sex.
The court of Henry VIII it is besieged by prospects of war with France and Henry is more than willing to fight. This precarious situation brings certain key players at court to the attention of the audience. Cardinal Wolsey chief advisor to the king and head of the Roman Catholic clergy in England is featured prominently in the king’s household, displaying great power and ambition. Yet despite his perceived loyalty to the king Cardinal Wolsey plots against the king’s plans for war. The Cardinal hatches a plot with the French to secure a peace with England in exchange for the support of the French clergy during a looming Papal election – effectively Wolsey secures peace but through self interested motives.
Sir Thomas Moore – a boyhood tutor and mentor of Henry is also against war with France. But the character of Moore serves as a point of contrast to the self interested Wolsey. Since the moment of his introduction Moore is portrayed as the word of reason to Henry’s temperament and ego. This is evident when Henry seeks out Moore’s thoughts in regards to a war with France. Moore beseeches Henry to remember the humanistic ideals of peace that he had taught him as a child hinting that through peace a king could achieve greatness – playing to Henry’s vanity.
Although Moore and Wolsey are driven by differing reasons to preserve peace with France (it is assumed that Moore is acting out of the principles of reason) they work together to draft up an alliance dubbed the “Treaty of Perpetual Peace” between France and England. Both Wolsey and More explain to Henry that the novelty of such an alliance would cement his reputation across Europe as a great Renaissance prince –Henry agrees. The series gets even more interesting upon the revelation that Francis I king of France and Henry are cousins and their meeting at the “Field of the Cloth of Gold” serves as the back drop to the unfolding plots of the second episode.
Although the war with France is averted Henry is not loved by everyone at his court. The series portrays Henry as having the ego of a young and restless man his companions serve to emphasize these characteristics. The rambunctious posse of favorites not only bring out the king’s youthful (and reckless) personality but they also irritate one particular aristocrat by the name of Edward Stafford 3 rd Duke of Buckingham. Himself of royal blood, Buckingham is shown to loathe Henry VIII, referring to him as a usurper and pretender – he has even less respect for the king's favorites particularly Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk who deflowered his daughter. By the end of the first episode Buckingham is working on a plot to install himself as king.
The Tudors might take some liberties with historical facts at times but the series is nonetheless entertaining. The series is also testament to the fact that stories of infamy never grow old.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Josh Wolf
A cold tinge should be crawling up the spines of both seasoned and novice journalists when thinking about the future of freedom of the press - Josh Wolf a video journalist has been thrown in jail by order of a federal judge for refusing to hand over footage taken during a demonstration that turned violent.
On July 8th 2006 Josh Wolf took footage of a political demonstration, he then edited the tape (as most video journalists do) then sold it to local San Francisco media outlets. This sounds harmless enough right? Not according to federal courts. The federal government subpoenaed Wolf’s unedited footage in order to conduct a federal investigation concerning an assault against and officer and damage done to a police car.
The demonstration was an anti-Bush event, which exploded into a confrontation between the protesters and the police. Wolf's footage shows the altercation as it unfolds yet the federal government seeks the unedited version of Wolf's tape in order to proceed with it's investigation concerning whether or not a federal crime was committed by the protesters. Although the edited version of Wolf's tape shows no damage being done to a police car nor does it depict an assault against an officer the federal government has deemed the unedited version as important to the case. Since the police car was partially paid for with federal money the grand jury deemed it a federal case when Wolf refused to turn over his raw footage.
According to Wolf the federal government resembles more the Spanish Inquisition rather than government for the people by the people. The San Francisco Weekly reported, "Wolf called the investigation an FBI witch hunt of anarchists, pointing out that the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has monitored many antiwar groups since 9/11, including Indymedia." Indymedia being an anarchist affiliated media outlet.
In order to keep his video Wolf had to demonstrate that the subpoena was a violation of his rights as a journalist and that it was an unreasonable action taken by the federal government. To further augment his argument against the federal government Wolf cited having been visited by members of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force further more, he pointed to recent infractions taken against suspected anarchist organizations and individuals by the Justice Department. Yet there was little he could prove.
Many (including Wolf's lawyers) have argued the California shield law should be called upon to protect Wolf's rights as a journalist. The shield law, "allows journalists to maintain confidential unpublished information obtained during newsgathering. The law lets journalists cast a wide net in reporting, even though they may end up seeing or hearing actions that are illegal." Wolf's lawyers argued that granting the government widespread power to request unused recordings, would be a violation of the First Amendment rights of free speech. Yet since it is a federal case the California shield law does not apply. Furthermore, the extent in which journalists are protected in federal courts is a grey area, which is why this particular case is worrisome in regards to the precedence it is setting.
Another issue that Wolf’s case brings to the limelight is directly related to the term journalist. Wolf is a "self-pointed-citizen-journalist" – a brand of journalists that seem to be growing in numbers and importance as technology allows for non-traditional journalists to publish, post, tape or snap news. Therefore, the definition of a journalist in the eyes of both state and federal courts is called into question. Is Josh Wolf a journalist? If not then who is?
Whether or not Josh Wolf is some punk kid who should obey the federal court order or whether he’s an American hero is beside the point. His case has brought to light many issues that have till recently been only bubbling at the surface. Our civil liberties are being sacrificed like a lamb on the alter of “the greater good.” But is the federal government the “greater good”? Is our safety as a country clearly being threatened by supposed “domestic terrorists” or in this case anarchists so much so that we need to surrender anything the government wants? I think not.
Thus far the precedence set by Wolf's ordeal is quite alarming since in regards to this case the federal government is attempting to bypass the civil liberties granted to us by the First Amendment. Granting the federal government the power to view all material that was gathered but not published or recorded by a journalist would in effect transform journalists into a sort of task force for the Justice Department essentially ending freedom of the press. Yet despite the injustice of Wolf's current condition his case may also help revamp the traditional and archaic definitions attached to the term journalist.
On July 8th 2006 Josh Wolf took footage of a political demonstration, he then edited the tape (as most video journalists do) then sold it to local San Francisco media outlets. This sounds harmless enough right? Not according to federal courts. The federal government subpoenaed Wolf’s unedited footage in order to conduct a federal investigation concerning an assault against and officer and damage done to a police car.
The demonstration was an anti-Bush event, which exploded into a confrontation between the protesters and the police. Wolf's footage shows the altercation as it unfolds yet the federal government seeks the unedited version of Wolf's tape in order to proceed with it's investigation concerning whether or not a federal crime was committed by the protesters. Although the edited version of Wolf's tape shows no damage being done to a police car nor does it depict an assault against an officer the federal government has deemed the unedited version as important to the case. Since the police car was partially paid for with federal money the grand jury deemed it a federal case when Wolf refused to turn over his raw footage.
According to Wolf the federal government resembles more the Spanish Inquisition rather than government for the people by the people. The San Francisco Weekly reported, "Wolf called the investigation an FBI witch hunt of anarchists, pointing out that the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has monitored many antiwar groups since 9/11, including Indymedia." Indymedia being an anarchist affiliated media outlet.
In order to keep his video Wolf had to demonstrate that the subpoena was a violation of his rights as a journalist and that it was an unreasonable action taken by the federal government. To further augment his argument against the federal government Wolf cited having been visited by members of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force further more, he pointed to recent infractions taken against suspected anarchist organizations and individuals by the Justice Department. Yet there was little he could prove.
Many (including Wolf's lawyers) have argued the California shield law should be called upon to protect Wolf's rights as a journalist. The shield law, "allows journalists to maintain confidential unpublished information obtained during newsgathering. The law lets journalists cast a wide net in reporting, even though they may end up seeing or hearing actions that are illegal." Wolf's lawyers argued that granting the government widespread power to request unused recordings, would be a violation of the First Amendment rights of free speech. Yet since it is a federal case the California shield law does not apply. Furthermore, the extent in which journalists are protected in federal courts is a grey area, which is why this particular case is worrisome in regards to the precedence it is setting.
Another issue that Wolf’s case brings to the limelight is directly related to the term journalist. Wolf is a "self-pointed-citizen-journalist" – a brand of journalists that seem to be growing in numbers and importance as technology allows for non-traditional journalists to publish, post, tape or snap news. Therefore, the definition of a journalist in the eyes of both state and federal courts is called into question. Is Josh Wolf a journalist? If not then who is?
Whether or not Josh Wolf is some punk kid who should obey the federal court order or whether he’s an American hero is beside the point. His case has brought to light many issues that have till recently been only bubbling at the surface. Our civil liberties are being sacrificed like a lamb on the alter of “the greater good.” But is the federal government the “greater good”? Is our safety as a country clearly being threatened by supposed “domestic terrorists” or in this case anarchists so much so that we need to surrender anything the government wants? I think not.
Thus far the precedence set by Wolf's ordeal is quite alarming since in regards to this case the federal government is attempting to bypass the civil liberties granted to us by the First Amendment. Granting the federal government the power to view all material that was gathered but not published or recorded by a journalist would in effect transform journalists into a sort of task force for the Justice Department essentially ending freedom of the press. Yet despite the injustice of Wolf's current condition his case may also help revamp the traditional and archaic definitions attached to the term journalist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)