The Tudors‘ new season, premiering March 30 on Showtime, covers Anne’s thousand-day reign as queen. Even casual fans of history know the season will not end well. Henry’s third wife, Jane Seymour (played by Icelandic actress Anita Briem) is already at court and has caught the king’s eye.
We interviewed Michael Hirst, the producer, creator and director of this sultry series about the new season and where it will be taking us. Here are his comments on life at court now that Anne is queen.
How much will the clash of ideology between Pius III and Henry play into the new season?
Season 2 has as its dynamic center two different but connected issues: the marriage of Henry to Anne Boleyn and the Reformation — the destruction of the Catholic Faith and its institutions in England. These issues are related in very many ways. Anne was herself a Reformer who encouraged Henry to become head of the English Church. In the process Henry isolated and finally killed his old friend Thomas More, as well as overturning a traditional way of life which had existed for centuries. In so doing, of course, Henry came directly into conflict with the new pope, Paul III. Unlike his prevaricating predecessor, Paul was a man of action, as ruthless as any Renaissance Prince. Although he could not call upon an army to overthrow Henry when the king finally broke with Rome and denied his authority, the pope could still — and did — summon up other powers. He continued to threaten Henry with the extreme sanction of excommunication, which meant he would be denied the consolations of the church and not granted entry to heaven; and he sponsored assassination attempts by loyal Catholics on Anne, called a “heretic and a whore.” So, yes, the clash of ideologies, as well as of personalities, is at the heart of the new season.
The early information on this series makes it clear that this season will be essentially the thousand-day reign of Anne Boleyn. Historically, Jane Seymour was already part of court when Anne fell out of favor. Some historians view her as the love of Henry’s life, while Anne was the passion. Who will be playing Jane and will you follow this view of history?
Jane is played by an actress called Anita Briem. She is Icelandic, educated in the UK, living in Hollywood. She is an extreme contrast to Anne — blond and careful, with some ice in her veins, against dark and passionate and sometimes wild Anne. But both young women are clever, beautiful and complex. And it’s true that Jane became a Lady-in-Waiting to Anne, just as Anne had been a Lady-in-Waiting to Katherine when she was Queen, and so got noticed that way. After all, there were no other ladies in court!
And of course it is terrible for Anne, having to watch history repeat itself, having to observe the budding relationship between her husband and her maid. It almost drives her mad! But to say that Jane was the love of Henry’s life, while Anne was his passion, doesn’t do justice to either of them, nor the complexity of Henry’s own (increasingly strange) psychology. Henry didn’t know Jane long enough (she died giving birth to their first child) to qualify as the love of his life. Of course, since she presented him with the thing he desired most in the world — a living and legitimate son and heir — he always had a special place for her in his heart. But he had desired and pursued Anne for six or seven years before he actually married her, and the violence of his hatred of her in the end does indicate just how much he’d loved her in the beginning. He ultimately felt that Anne had made a fool of him, and exploited his passion for her, which made him vulnerable. As a king, he felt strongly that nobody should ever make him feel vulnerable — especially not a woman. And, in retrospect, this made him admire and love his first queen, Katherine, even more since she was always regal and didn’t exercise over him “the black charms and witchcraft of women.” We can safely say that Henry was like many men: he didn’t ever really understand women (after all he’d been brought up to enter the church); he lusted after them, even sometimes intellectually treated them as equals, was often chivalric, but in the end, considered them capricious and unfathomable.
Can you comment on Peter O’Toole’s portrayal of the pope?
Peter O’Toole’s colorful past, just as much as his charismatic presence, makes him an ideal Renaissance Pope. The real Pope Paul III, a scion of the Farnese family in Italy, was both brilliant and cunning. He established his family’s fortune by stealing treasures from the Vatican and smelting them down. And yet he also commissioned Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel. A larger-than-life character, immoral and spiritual at the same time, he finds perfect expression through O’Toole, who on screen is simultaneously magisterial and wry. O’Toole also brings in his wake a kind of grandeur which enhances the status of his papal role, and of course he remains one of the world’s great actors. When he delivered a long public speech, purportedly from his balcony overlooking St Peter’s Square, he did so in one take — and the whole production crew stood up to applaud!
Right now The Tudors is the top download on iTunes, indicating that a younger hipper audience is attracted to the drama. This is something of a break with the demographic of the older audience that usually watches historical dramas. I know this was what the production aimed for, but did you anticipate the incredible success you had?
We were very much hoping that the show would attract younger viewers. It’s unlike, after all, most if not all previous “historical dramas,” or dramas based upon historical material. This was deliberate. I have long been frustrated by the tendency of the makers of such shows to be both deferential to their subjects and treat them like dummies in a museum. We knew from the start we wanted living drama; we wanted human beings dealing with real issues who bled when cut, conspired against each other, and often ended up in bed together. History is not a foreign country. We wanted a young Henry because Henry was young once, he was very attractive, and lots of violent and sexy and important things happened in England before he grew fat, grotesque and “historical.” We wanted to get away from cliche. We wanted people to think and have fun watching the show. And yet the show doesn’t just appeal to young people. As far as I can tell — especially among women — it is across the board, and across the world. Why? For the reasons above — and because it works as a soap opera, as engaging drama: because you care about the people inside it, and want to know if they live or die.
Since the series that has been so much about Henry and Anne and such a hit for Showtime, it certainly could continue on. But Jane was no Anne. If you have a season 3, how will you keep the passion alive?
The Tudors is all about passion. Sexual passion, certainly. But also religious passion — for which Fisher and More and others are executed. Political passion, too — which in those days meant an intense, often murderous ambition for personal or family advancement. The passion of parents for children, and the passion of love. So it’s not true that the only driving force of the first two seasons is Henry’s sexual desire for Anne. True, Natalie Dormer comes of age and is triumphant as the doomed Queen — but by then Henry hates her and has a passion for her destruction. At the same time, his passion for Jane is idealistic, projecting onto her all the uncorrupted, innocent virtues he feels Anne has besmirched. And, after her, there will be other queens, other women, other passions, betrayals and deaths. Henry’s reign, quite frankly, is the reign of a passionate man, whose passions finally turn him into a monster. But — don’t forget — the series is called “The Tudors,” not “Henry.” Think about that!