I have to disagree with you on that. If that was their intent, they failed miserably as it to me looked and felt more like an interpretation of history as seen through a director who makes soft porno movies or MTV videos and has not read anything of the historical period.
FWIW, I watched the movie Marie Antoinette written and directed by Sofia Coppola and starring Kirsten Dunst. And as bad as it was in some parts, with its use of modern music in some sequences and use of some, if not many story telling liberties, it was still more faithful to history than The Tudors.
I have to disagree with you on that. If that was their intent, they failed miserably as it to me looked and felt more like an interpretation of history as seen through a director who makes soft porno movies or MTV videos and has not read anything of the historical period.
There was plenty of soft porn and hard porn IMHO. That one scene of a male servant wh@cking off King Henry was gratuitous and yucky, totally unnecessary in my opinion. The producers/directors didn’t’ even try to make the actor playing Henry look like the real Henry—what was that about? And some of the costumes for Anne Boleyn were just silly, like Bob Mackie had recycled some of his outfits from “Dynasty” LMAO.
That movie was vile, not as FACTUAL as you claim, and worthless.