Victorious at Bosworth Fields, Henry VII assumes the crown of England but is forced to deal with pretenders, disloyalty, and insurrection while trying to rule as a benevolent and enlightened King. James Maxwell is quite good as Henry and the cast, made up of competent, albeit not noteworthy, British actor and actresses is fine. The stagy look of the film makes up for the obvious limited budget and the script has that pseudo-Shakespearian weightiness than makes for a good historical outing. The episodic series was made as a 'prequel' to the BBC's very popular 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' and 'Elizabeth R', (both 1971) and the three productions seen in historical order would make for an entertaining and educational excursion through the sometimes benign, sometimes bloody, three generation Tudor dynasty.
Add a Review
-
jamesrupert201410 November 2021
-
Everything most modern historical shows (especially about the 15th-16th century English monarchs-- you know what they are) are not. Writing, historical accuracy, and top-quality acting are prized over sensationalism and sex, and the show is all the more intriguing for it. It hardly matters that the budget is low or that the camerawork isn't super "cinematic"-- the political intrigue and Henry VII's tightrope walk between being a good king, businessman, and family man are just wonderful to watch.
-
johnboescoulthard25 September 2019Impossible to imagine being made now, The Shadow of the Tower is a deep and insightful look at the Tudor era's least remembered ruler and its founder: Henry VII. The writing is always engaging even in the weaker episodes and there is a great eye for historical detail. Some episodes rise even higher than the rest, particulary those written by Hugh Whitemore. I see many reviewers here accuse the show of bad acting. I cannot understand that. Some minor roles are of course, but then I can't imagine what these people would make of more recent shows like the Tudors. I am sure nobody thinks that of James Maxwell who is obviously the stand out in portraying a compassionate, fair ruler who is occasionally conflicted but is also highly intelligent. Where it works in history it perhaps fails in drama. It is really a dramatised documentary though probably more accurate than most. I think a lot of people would find it dull. The history is what it is interested in, however, and there is not a wasted word as far as I am concerned. Henry's reign may not on the surface be especially dramatic compared to others but it was actually poised on a very interesting turning point in the shift from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age.
I would recommend to anyone interested in history and the episode "The Serpent and the Comforter" works great as a standalone. -
susanhudek5322 January 2023I found this mini series quite by accident. Although it can be a bit stagey and talky, I really enjoyed it. It's not about the son, it's the dad. Can't recall many biographies or documentaries about King Henry VII. I think John Maxwell is awesome. Then as the series progresses we have Geoffrey Palmer, John Castle, Rachel Kempson, and. Peter Bowles, all early in there careers.
I like the production value and the costumes look right. It maybe a tad long but that didn't bother me too much. I binged for 6 hrs took a break..LOL then watched the final seven.
I always thought Henry VII was an interesting character, from being a loved King only to become miserly and miserable later in life. He'd make a great Psychological study.
The other upside was seeing some great acting from people I never her of. Bruce Hodgkins, Norma West, Hugh Sullivan and especially Marigold Sharman.
It takes great acting to make a rather talky production watchable and it certainly is for me. -
'The Shadow of the Tower' came to my attention as a recommendation, having been so taken with both 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' and especially 'Elizabeth R' with Keith Michell and Glenda Jackson giving unforgettable portrayals as Henry and Elizabeth.
Finally seeing 'The Shadow of the Tower' it was intriguing certainly, but it was also somewhat of a let-down. It is definitely worth seeing for anybody who wants to learn more about King Henry VII, most famous for being Henry VIII's father and defeating Richard III at the battle of Bosworth (signalling the end of the "Wars of the Roses") and until seeing that was pretty much all that was personally known about him. To see 'The Shadow of the Tower' giving him much complexity and making him a richly and vividly drawn character was really wonderful to see, and is one of the series' biggest selling points.
As is the nuanced, understated, while still giving the character plenty of juice, and altogether marvellous performance of James Maxwell, one almost on par with Michell's Henry VIII and Jackson's Elizabeth I and definitely the best thing about 'The Shadow of the Tower. The acting other than Maxwell very much varies, the performances of Perkin Warbeck and Earl of Warwick (the best developed supporting characters too) come off best and are strong portrayals. Too much of the rest of the acting is either too overwroughtly hammy or too staidly stagy. Don't know what the writers and casting directors were thinking with that out-of-place and offensively stereotypical Jewish Spanish Ambassador character.
Production values, writing and storytelling also varies. The costumes are accurate, evocative and attractive and the photography is skillful, unfussy and attractively done, but too much of the production values have a shoe-string budget and confined look that rob the locations and period detail of their grandeur and expansiveness, the sets look like they were worth less than one pound or something. The music is beautifully composed and never intrudes, used at minimum in fact.
Some of the writing is very good, credit is due to making Henry, Warbeck and Warwick well-drawn characters and it is very literate and thought-provoking with no obvious factual distortions, so it will be no doubt fascinating for historical buffs. In other places though, a danger this said for script-writing so heavy in detail, it is a bit too rambling and wordy, with some scenes having too much talk that undermines the momentum. Some of it has lapses in continuity and clarity of where and when everything took place, as well as having some convoluted and clunky exposition.
In 'The Shadow of the Tower' there is a good deal of compelling storytelling and one is fascinated by a monarch that is much more interesting and complex than the two things that he's most well-known for. Some of the storytelling later on after starting grippingly does suffer from lack of narrative link which harms the continuity and causes confusion and some too staid pacing (yes 'The Shadow of the Tower' was a series where slow pacing was necessary, but it does feel dull and has too much of a drifting feel when there is a lack of dramatic conflict and a lot of talk).
On the whole, worth watching but disappointing. Nothing is done disastrously, but at the end of the day the development of Henry VII and James Maxwell are the only truly outstanding things, everything else is variable. 6/10 Bethany Cox -
nickjg30 December 2006Henry Tudor was second only to his Granddaughter, Elizabeth I as a successful monarch. Unfortunately, his latter years were bitter and overshadowed by illness. Further, his son, the future Henry VIII lived in his shadow and did much to outdo and erase his father's legacy. He was also cast by wishful thinkers as the murderer of the Princes in the Tower because they want to re-invent the worthless Richard III. The problem for the BBC when they wanted to complete their coverage of the Tudors, following The Six Wives and Elizabeth R series, is that Henry VIIIth claimed many of his father's achievements as his own and did much to bury the personal history. Thus, the writers of this series had little material to flesh out Tudor's rise from obscurity to creation of a dynasty, defeating his enemies and becoming a millionaire. So, notwithstanding a good cast and, potentially, a much more exciting story, the project was dogged by wordy and worthy scripts making an under-performing prequel to the bloodier dramas. This story needs a remake! A valiant effort at portraying the least bloodthirsty of the Tudors, but somewhat bloodless!
-
CinemaSerf11 September 2020James Maxwell was probably far more accomplished as a theatre director than an actor, and his casting here as the first English Tudor monarch, King Henry VII, is probably the source of this drama's struggles. That king had a reputation for deviousness and ruthlessness that this performance seems to overly sanitise; indeed the whole thing lacks the potency and vibrancy of it's chronological successor "Henry VIII and his Six Wives" (1970). It is spread across 13 fifty minute episodes - some based on fact: his defeat of Richard III; accession; marriage to Edward IV's daughter - Elizabeth of York; Perkin Warbeck and his rebellions etc. and some based on potential scenarios that he may have faced during his reign - the best probably being an encounter with Peter Jeffrey as "The Prisoner", a man accused of heretical behaviour because he happens to believe that Jesus is not best represented to the people by a corrupt and venal Church. There is a decent cast drawn from English theatre circles with Norma West appearing, sparingly, as his wife, but the dialogue is overly verbose; the studio scenery implies some of the dinginess of their actual existence but at the same time leaves us looking at something over staged and really pretty unrealistic (and poorly lit) most of the time. The fact that many of the episodes were directed by different people also doesn't help the continuing, pretty tame, narrative of this fascinatingly shrewd individual from history. Maybe had it just condensed the reign into six episodes under the hand of one director then it would have improved significantly? Rarely available nowadays - probably far too expensive to repeat, but it is still very much worth watching despite it's flaws.
-
enochsneed30 July 2019In the early 1970's 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' and 'Elizabeth R' enthralled the TV viewers of the UK with superb acting, gorgeous costumes, incisive scripts and high - for the time - production values. Even more exciting they were in colour, which was a real novelty at the time.
Looking for a follow-up project the BBC decided to go back in time to the founding of the Tudor line by Henry VII. The unfortunate truth is that Henry senior was far less colourful than his son or granddaughter. He was a shrewd ruler who used bureaucracy, the law and financial policy to maintain his power - and he was devotedly married to his wife Elizabeth and heart-broken when she died. In other words a bit of a cold fish with little fire and romance to turn into 12 hours of TV drama.
This story could have been told in half the time or less, but the BBC obviously thought they were on the crest of a wave and got too greedy. The result was a long-winded trudge through 24 years of history. Henry's reign was not uneventful, nor unsuccessful, but there were no wives or mistresses, no Spanish Armada and no rousing speeches.
The scripts are turgid and wordy and some of the acting positively amateurish. The younger women are also too much like 1960's 'dolly birds' as we called them then. If you enjoyed the other Tudor series of the time, don't think this is of the same quality. One to avoid.