We felt that although they were patchy, there was a tremendous political energy in the Henry plays.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I always seemed to disappoint them. They expected me to be different than Henry or exactly like Henry. I was neither.
The events with Henry III happened, obviously the way it happened, liberties were taken.
The 16th-century theatre witnessed the particularly English manifestation of 'the history play.' There can be no doubt that Shakespeare's presentations of 'Henry V' and 'Richard III' have been incalculably more influential than any more sober historical study.
I hoped the dramatic power of the play would rest on that tension between elegant structure - the underlying plan is that you see the first and last meeting of every couple in the play - and inelegant emotion.
England was incredibly dull and everything exciting seemed to be in America.
English history turned on Henry VIII and his desires, his whims almost. And it was down to Cromwell to make those desires happen. He was the guy that fixed it. He was also the guy that eased Henry's conscience. Because Henry VIII had an enormous, tender conscience and great theological knowledge.
I think new plays are vastly more surprising and challenging and inspiring; I hear from audiences all the time that they are delighted when they see plays about the world we live in now, at this moment.
'The Tudors' was ground-breaking in the sense that it did ruffle the feathers of classical historians and alter the way people did period drama at the time.
When we leave the play saying how spectacular the sets or costumes were, or how interesting the ideas, it means we had a bad time.
The public must suffer untold pangs from the stiffness, the deliberate stifling of emotion, on the part of many British actors.