Sign in or 
Location: The Tudors Wiki Discussion Forum
Discussion: Michael Hirst talks about the succession and Life after Henry
Category:
Discussion Forum /
The TV Series
Share this
Showing 7 posts
amyburr |
Michael Hirst talks about the succession and Life after Henry
Jun 25 2010, 1:09 PM EDT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sE44qlMvzs
Do you find this valuable?
Keyword tags:
death
Edward VI
Elizabeth I
Henry VIII
Mary I
Michael Hirst
succession
|
AugustRose |
1. RE: Michael Hirst talks about the succession and Life after Henry
Jun 25 2010, 6:51 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 25 2010, 6:54 PM EDT
Hirst straight up had his history wrong. Edward Seymour did not put Jane Grey on the throne...because he was already dead. Hirst just erased the Dudleys from existence and calls Jane Grey a woman with a "slim" claim to throne (but that's what happens when you merge Henry's sisters on the show--don't want to confuse people with historical explanations). And Edward might have been poisoned. It's one thing to have dramatic license (though I take issue with how much license one should have), but when giving an interview about what *really* happened, getting the facts wrong is not acceptable. Do you find this valuable? |
DuchessGrey |
2. RE: Michael Hirst talks about the succession and Life after Henry
Jun 25 2010, 7:57 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 25 2010, 7:59 PM EDT
I agree. There is nothing wrong with taking dramatic license and admitting to it. Sometimes you have too (within reason). The problem with Hirst and what makes him so ridculous is the fact that somehow he believes his idea of history is accurate. He knows better than all historians and historical documents.I do not mean to rag on the man. Maybe that is not his intent, however, his choice of words are a bit off the wall. The man sounds like an idiot sometimes. Do you find this valuable? |
Simhawk09 |
3. RE: Michael Hirst talks about the succession and Life after Henry
Jun 25 2010, 8:59 PM EDT
I have seen the interview and I also noticed that he got his info wrong. But I think it's possible that maybe he did get his info right, but they obviously couldn't include everything he said. Maybe they just cut the parts where he mentioned Dudley and merged it to make it appear he was talking about Seymour. I imagine he went into a lot more detail but they cut a lot so nto to confuse the viewers that aren't very familiar with the history. Just a thought.
Do you find this valuable?
|
queencaroline |
4. RE: Michael Hirst talks about the succession and Life after Henry
Jun 25 2010, 10:16 PM EDT
It could have been edited oddly. However, Hirst does come off as wrong--or incapable of citing his own inaccuracies--when talking about The Tudors on the special features of the DVDs. In the timeline presented on the season 3 special features, I've always taken offense to the manner in which he talks about Henry and CofA's marriage. He "liked" her, Hirst says. Henry was certainly passionate, and probably in love with, Catherine in the beginning of their marriage. He chose to marry her for love, or at least what his concept of love was. Hirst brushes Catherine off as this old maid from the start. She was quite lovely in her early days, and still very pretty when Henry married her.He does tend to generalize. However, if he doesn't remember to admit his own inaccuracies, he could end up like Philippa Gregory. Do you find this valuable? |
|
amyburr |
5. RE: Michael Hirst talks about the succession and Life after Henry
Jun 27 2010, 8:10 PM EDT
When I posted this, I was posting from my phone and hadn't had a chance to watch it yet. I noticed the inaccuracy when I watched it too. It doesn't seem like the editing could have been the reason for the inaccuracy being there. It seems like he was actually wrong or he was trying to reach out to the fans of the show the tudors - who (for the ones that really don't know the history at all) did not know who John Dudley was because he wasn't a character in the show. Still, if that's the case, why would he do that? That's not history. This isn't a continuation of the show where you can change the history for dramatic purposes or for the sake of it making sense to the masses. When speaking about history, you should know your history, not change it to benefit yourself or dumb it down for people that just don't know. Do you find this valuable? |
|
vitaw |
6. unskilled interviewer...who is she...?
Jan 26 2012, 6:33 PM EST
| Post edited: Jan 26 2012, 6:41 PM EST
While Hirst did get a few of his facts confused, I was overall very impressed with the passion and emotion he brought to the interview. Speaking of interviews, I was mortified by the immature quality of the interviewer of cast members in the Special Features of the 13 disk collection. When JRM was interviewed, he handled the ineptitude of the interviewer very well; poor Henry Cavill, who play Charles Brandon was clearly uncomfortable with the interviewer's approach: in both instances, the questions asked were poorly phrased, awkward, semi-automatic in delivery ...really embarrassing to watch/listen...who was this woman who got the privilege of interviewing the actors in such a top-notch production...?...she did a very poor job and made the actors squirm, and become impatient with her style, or lack thereof...it was a missed opportunity for viewers to 'meet the actors' and hear their perspective on their roles...very disappointing and uncomfortable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
