The Tudors: Watching For Love-Cars

The Tudors is an abomination. Eyewear does not dismiss all televisual eyecandy - seriously immoral, or moral, viewing, both have their offerings to consider. However, amoral TV is the most grievous harm, to body and soul. It drips cynicism like some circus barkers do sweat.

Last night's (on British terrestrial) episode of the Tudors was simply bad karma in two dimensions. It purported to engage with the tragic, moral martyrdom of Saint John Fisher and Saint Thomas More, at the hands of pragmatic Protestant king Henry VIII (here slimmed down to a lithe sexual predator with a nu-metal band member's facial hair) - and their fine splitting of theological and political hairs, regarding conscience, and obediance (church and state matters); while, equally, celebrating the bedroom romping of a king whose finger merely has to crook to conquer young starlets.

This approach may make good TV (after the watershed) - but sits poorly with the solemn, heart-rending bloodshed whacked down upon the heads of good Christian thinkers. It is as if The Sopranos were wedded to a series about the Council of Nicea. I understand the commercial appeal of sex and execution - but surely, it was a cynical edit to follow the beheading of good Cardinal Fisher with Michelangelo's profane holler of "asshole!".

Comments

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart? A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional. Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were. For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ? Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets. But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ? How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular. John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se....

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and Silence of the Lambs . I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".

E Y E W E A R, THE BLOG - FREEDOM MEANS BEING UNAFRAID TO WRITE WHAT YOU THINK

Search This Blog