The White Queen: Season 1 [Blu-ray]

Let me say right at the outset that I am not overly concerned about historical accuracy in a TV drama series or a work of historical fiction. I do enjoy the kind of speculation that Philippa Gregory engages in when the information available is inconclusive about a certain person or event. I am happy to run with any number of theories about the fate of the Princes in the Tower, I am OK with Perkin Warbeck being Richard of Shrewsbury, I am alright with Princess Lizzie having an affair with her uncle, and I am OK with Elizabeth Woodville practicing witchcraft for real. I do draw the line at completely unattested, invented allegations like Henry VII raping his bride-to-be, but I am fine with all the rest, where there are historical rumors and allegations on which to base the speculation. If this makes your blood boil, this show is not for you.This series started out slow, but then gained momentum and finished very strongly, IMO.I've read the three books this series is based on, and other books on the Wars of the Roses, so I had no trouble keeping the characters straight. I am not sure that this is a simple task for someone who has no knowledge of the period. Things move very quickly in the later episodes.Here's my assessment of the strength and weaknesses of the show-The Bad-1) Visual anachronisms- Zippered dresses, concrete steps, men's jackets that look like they were bought from a department store, people without headdresses and such.2) Some inexplicable decisions regarding the aging of characters- This series opens in 1464. Henry Tudor would have been a boy of about 7 at the time, and indeed at this stage he is played by a kid, and we see him go through various stages of growth. He is a young man of 28 when the series ends in 1485. However, Richard III ought to have been a boy of 12 at the beginning of the series and a man of 32 at the end of it, but he is played by the same actor throughout. Likewise for the Neville sisters. Similarly, lady Margaret Beaufort looks the same from start to finish, but Elizabeth Woodville is aged a bit in the last couple of episodes .3) Some events that took place are shown differently in the series, even though they are described correctly in the books. The execution of Hastings is left out for some reason (maybe to make Richard III look better?), and his attributes are given to Anthony Woodville. The historical Anthony was accompanying Edward V on his journey from Ludlow to London, and was arrested along the way, and later executed. Here, Anthony is in London, trying to broker some sort of deal between his sister and Richard and he is sleeping with Jane Shore. In reality, it is Hastings who had Shore as his mistress. I did not see the point of this distortion.4) Budgetary Constraints - It showed in many ways. The sets and locations were underpopulated. The Battle of Bosworth Field had to be staged in a forest because staging it in a field would require more extras, horses and other props. The characters seemed to have a very limited number of outfits. The same buildings were being used to depict Westminster and Middleham and Clarence's residence. There just weren't enough guards, servants, handmaidens and suchlike for it to look authentic.5) Max Irons just isn't able to project the toughness and savvy of a monarch who lost and regained his grip on power twice during the course of the series.That's a pretty long list of shortcomings.Now, for the Good-1) The agency given to the women. They are not appendages of the men. They are movers and shakers in their own right.2) The cast- With the notable exception of Max Irons, the rest of the cast is very good.Elizabeth Woodville is one of my favorite characters from the books and Rebecca Ferguson nails her completely. She is beautiful and smart and unforgiving and tough as nails. It isn't often that a character in film turns out just as you had imagined them upon reading the book.Amanda Hale has a tough job trying to humanize a character that comes across a bit caricaturish in the books. Philippa Gregory evidently has Yorkist sympathies. The Lancastrians usually don't come across very well in her writings. Margaret Beaufort is fanatical and a bit of a hypocrite in the books, and though she retains those characteristics in the series, she also comes across as vulnerable and doubtful about the nobility of her purpose, which makes her less grating.Aneurin Barnard makes a fantastic Richard III. As a nice guy who overreaches and does some questionable things and finally sees his world disintegrate, he manages to be both morally ambiguous and oddly sympathetic. The shot of the dead staring eyes of Richard as he lies stripped at Bosworth will forever remain seared into my brain.Rupert Graves is a riot as Lord Stanley. His dynamic with lady Margaret is great. He has the funniest scene in the series where he teases his wife about how Princess Lizzie is having an affair with her uncle. The way he pauses before describing the piece of gossip as "juicy" had me in splits.3) The characterization of Princess Lizzie. Elizabeth of York is too much of a quiet, retiring, non-confrontational type in Tudor period writings. I loved that she is portrayed as a feisty teenager in this series who talks back to both her mother and future mother-in-law. She seemed so much like a regular headstrong rebellious teenager that I had no trouble forgiving her for doing inappropriate things like having a crush on her uncle and not showing a whole lot of consideration for her aunt.On balance, I liked this very much . Aneurin Barnard has a new fan. The guy has a good singing voice. If only Richard and Henry had a sing off at Bosworth, it would save Princess Lizzy a lot of heartache.

Some of the actors need more experience but awesome. Wish there had been more than this season.

What's not to love? Great characters, great conflict, romantic medieval times, AND based on actual events!

I am huge fan on British history up until the Stuart era and have been reading about Elizabeth Woodville and the Cousins Wars for years and the only thing that I can say that this show does accurately is give you a good idea of the timeline of how things came to be and the impact that all this war and fighting had on Elizabeth and her children. I've always felt bad for her since because of this conflict she lost two brothers, her father, her first husband, three of her sons, and was forced to go through so much hardship. This show gives you a good idea of how the women must have felt going through all this.Having said that I will give some criticisms. First, this show does a very poor job in showing the maneuvers of the English court and how many retainers the English royalty had. Like theTudors did a good job of showing that at least. Here it just looks like th actors are in medeival times. Second, the thing where they have Cecily Duchess of York completely favoring George and then Richard has no real basis. The part where she says I can make George king is based on a rumor and a statement one ambassador made at the time, that was probably false, because the Duchess was well known for being an extremely pious woman and would never have admitted to having had an affair. Plus Edward is believed to have looked like the Duchess while Edward's brothers looked like his father (as in future Richard would attest that Edward was a bastard because he looked nothing like the former duke of York). Though true that Duchess Cecily was opposed to the marriages it is widely believed that those feeligs dissipated in future since she ended up spending alot of time with the Queen in EdwardVI's reign. She didnt even go to Richard III coronation, and mentioned neither of her younger sons in her will. The only thing she mentioned was that she was honored by her son his majesty the kiNG eDWARDvi of England.Thirdly, not that the Woodville's got what they came for, but they werent as perfect as the show seemsto portray them. They were too aggressive in placing their political influence, and made it very clear that they had no intention of letting Richard make decisions, effectlvely alienating him before Prince Edward was even crowned. Also they did marry their 19 year old son, John (who gets executed in ep 2) to the 60 year old widow of the Duchess of Norfolk, since she had a large fortune at her death, ironically she even outlived him. This gave them the reputation of money grabbing family, and there were instances where the father delibrately crushed people in his way. Though Ill say that they were alot better than Warick who this show captured quite well. He wanted to have power for himself through Edward and when Edward made it evident that he wasnt going to be pushed around Warick switched sides. Also historians mostly see the Warick being pushed aside not because of Elizabeth Woodville's influence but because of Edward's desire to emphasis his powerOh and Richard and Elizabeth. . . No just no. Even back then it was frowned upon for a niece to marry her uncle. I mean why did they have to go that far I dunno. Anne Neville in real life actually liked her nieces and recieved them in great favor, and Richard according to texts seems to have tried to make Henry tudor look stupid by having Elizabeth appear in court dressed lavishly in order to spread rumors that there was an intended wedding. Richard needed the power of the people's opinion more than anything at the time since his son was dead and tUDOR was already getting alot of support.I like this show since it gives u a rough idea of the politics of the time and gets people interested in teh period/ And i think this is an interesting era because it literally paved the way for the ideas and religious change that startedt o happen in England during Henry VIII era. Elizabeth of York raised Henry to make him aware that women were capable thinkers and he recognized their power, although he asserted that males were better, he did recognize his daughters' right to inherit thr throne later. So yeah this show is a good watch

I like it

Llego mucho antes de lo programado, en perfectas condiciones, estoy muy satisfecho con la compra.

「ホロウ・クラウン」が男性側視点ならばこちらの作品は女性側視点。薔薇戦争の登場人物がこの二作品を観ればほぼ把握できる。自分でぴったり登場人物を当てはめて薔薇戦争関連の本を読めば、活字と一緒に人物が動いてくれる。視覚的に世界観や登場人物関係を整理するのに映像は助けになる。こちらの作品は男女が空間で二人きりになると唐突に絡み始めるのびっくりする。家族がそろっている時に安易に見れないし、あまりに唐突なのでだんだん辟易する。でもそれを目をつむってもその後の読書に大いに助けになった。個人的にはキングメーカーのネヴィル家とマーガレット・ボーフォートの執念は見る価値あったと思う。

Lo compré para regalo, si les gustó

【追記】どうやら本レビューは、私が購入した製品以外のものにも流用されているようです。まず本レビューはBlu-ray discASIN B00BMRTPFQに関する評価であることを述べさせていただきます。【以下本文】「詐欺」などというあまりキツい表現は用いたくありませんが、あえて使わせていただきます。リージョンBなので、国内向けのプレイヤーでは再生できません。それだけでなく！PS3、PC、リージョンフリー、いずれのプレイヤーでも再生できませんでした。This Blu-ray disc will play back on region B players onlyという文字が表示されるだけ。（リージョンとは別の、「国ロック」とかいうヤツ？）繰り返しますが、リージョンフリープレイヤーでも再生できません。（PCのドライブの設定をいじることはしていません…悪しからず）ヒドいのは、2017日12月27日現在、「国内向けプレイヤーで、そして（少なくとも一部の）リージョンフリープレイヤーで、再生できない」旨の表示がなされていないこと。さらに、本商品のレビューは見たところ、Blu-rayのレビューではなく、DVDのレビューを転用した可能性が高いこと。五つ星をつけているレビュワー３名様は「アマゾンで購入」したわけではないこと。私以外で唯一「アマゾンで購入」されていらっしゃるレビュワーの方は、明らかにDVD商品のレビューをなさっていて、おそらくご本人に無断で、DVDのレビューから転用している可能性が高いこと。国内で再生できない商品であれば、約7500円が約1500円で叩き売られているのも納得。みなさん、私と同じ被害に遭わぬよう、ご注意ください。

A portrait of awful people, those who constituted the English ruling class in Britain (as well as France and Flanders) in the late 15th century. They were grasping, devious, treacherous, hypocritical, vicious, vengeful, petty, spiteful, jealous, religious, superstitious, immoral and unprincipled. Power centred on the sword and in the vacillating minds of monarchs. Absolutism meant living on the edge of whims made in the royal palace and living with the consequences of these shifting moods if you were a commoner without rank and redress of wrongs done to you. In an atmosphere of fear and distrust like this there were only ever two sides to choose from. Either you were with the king and his royal house or with the next usurper of them. In the first case you were a non-entity except when exploited by taxes or conscripted to fight in battles. In the second you lived dangerously as a traitor and if caught became the headless horseman of your own apocalypse. One shrewd nobleman, Sir Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby (1435-1504), hedged his bets by playing both sides of the divide, loyal one moment to the king (when it benefitted him), then a turncoat the next when it didn’t. But he had to be well connected and very clever to get away with it. Being powerful helped a lot too. This Wikipedia definition of him:“A landed magnate of immense power, particularly across the northwest of England where his authority went almost unchallenged, even by the Crown.”But most did not have Stanley’s power. Instead, they acquiesced to the powerful nobles and royals above them.Some people will say it’s unfair to apply 21st century moral standards to people in 15th century Europe. I think they’re wrong, as the human condition remains as it is, indelible. Verification of this comes from the 1948 U.N. Declaration of Universal Human Rights. Murder, rape, torture and plenty of other inhumane acts apply in all conditions in all places at all times. They are universal criminal offences. This is called civilisation. That Britain in the late 15th century was uncivilised is on vivid display here in this fine drama of political intrigue, deceit and cruelty. If you think our times are awful now (and they are in some ways where, for instance, 95% of all oxygen on Earth is polluted and over 15,000 nuclear weapons still exist) we live in a relative paradise compared to the absolute hell these people had to live through.Yet it’s a feature of dramas that protagonists must occur in them. Otherwise there’s no point in telling stories. If we are good, or hope to be good, we want to identify with what is good. In a story like this goodness looks thin on the ground, yet there is genuine affection, love, tenderness and devotion in it. Parents love their children and do their best to protect and instruct them. Some friendships based on trust and fidelity endure. The king (Edward IV, House of York) truly loves his Queen (Elizabeth Woodville, House of Lancaster), and she in turn genuinely returns the love. He says to her at one point that everything he has ever done or tried to do as king was because of her and his love for her. This may feel like overwriting on the part of Philippa Gregory and her screenwriters, but I’m not so sure. The historical accounts seem pretty emphatic that this marriage was one of profound mutual attraction, otherwise known as love as first sight. Elizabeth, a commoner, was not a customary or expected choice. Why should a king, the most powerful person in the land, stoop to marry a commoner? The accounts say he did so because he couldn’t help it. What good were alliances and state policy for him if, as the most powerful being in the land, he couldn’t even choose his own happiness? So he turned his back on tradition and protocol and followed his heart. This isn’t a point of sentimentality in the story. Instead, it’s quite touching, and if you are in love or have ever been in love you might agree with me upon seeing their romance and attachment. Their love is something bright in an otherwise dark drama.The problem with politics is that it pollutes so much, especially the soul. Most of the characters in this story are soulless, having sold out at some point along the way, making their Faustian bargains with contingencies that would benefit them politically, socially, financially, etc. Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry Tudor (future King of England as Henry VII) is one of the worst hypocrites. Not only is she scheming and conniving, she’s also pious, believing anything she thinks, says and does has God’s explicit blessing. I kept hoping against hope that Ford Prefect, the alien who visits Earth in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy would show up in the drama and ask her:“And just who is this God person you keep rattling on about and prostrating yourself to?”Reasonable question, though one seldom or never asked back then.But there are other machiavellian hypocrites worse than Margaret. One is Richard Neville, the 16th Earl of Warwick. Sleazy and repellant, he’s the kingmaker behind the scenes, the kind of guy you would never lend a tenner to for the next round. He drips with ambition and scheming, mellowness not part of his psychological remit. I knew he would die in battle at some point, but his death could not come soon enough for me. People aren’t human to him, especially his marriageable daughters. They are pieces on the political chess board, means to an end instead of sentient ends in themselves. Again, modern romance on my part? I don’t think so. If a man as father cannot love his daughters in any age he’s hardly fit to think himself a man and father. I despise him for this. Even his nearest and dearest, or what should be his dearest, are corrupted by his cynical ambition. In fact I was unable to stifle a laugh when someone at his funeral called him “a good and noble man”, similar to Paul Manafort, a Trump criminal associate, who is said to have “led a blameless life” in the opinion of the judge who sentenced him to prison.But worse than the hypocrites are the murderers. Is it true that King Richard III murdered the young sons (aged 8 and 12) of his brother King Edward IV after Edward died in 1483? Richard claimed he didn’t do it. If not, someone did. Margaret Beaufort is shown to be a candidate in this drama, as she stood to gain everything by their deaths if King Richard could be deposed (which he subsequently was by death in battle in 1485). His slayer was Henry Tudor, son of Margaret Beaufort, who then ascended the throne as Henry VII, founder of the Tudor dynasty that included his son Henry VIII and granddaughter Queen Elizabeth I.How did the so-called War of the Roses end? Through political compromise. The eldest daughter of the White Queen, Elizabeth Woodville, wife of King Edward IV, married Henry VII, thus uniting the two Houses of York and Lancaster (Tudor) and putting an end to the civil war that raged between cousins in the same extended family for over 30 years. So, that’s one positive point in the story, a political act that ushers in a period of temporary peace (before Henry VIII disposes of wives and takes on the Pope). The daughter of the White Queen is also an Elizabeth — Princess Elizabeth, whose story is told in the equally superb BBC series, The White Princess, which is just as good as this series, if not better. For one thing, it has subtitles, which ought to be compulsory by my reckoning. Nothing is wrong with my hearing. What’s wrong is muffled dialogue that cannot be deciphered no matter how high the volume is turned up. The BBC budget for The White Queen was £25 million. That’s a lot of money for a 10-part mini series. Granted, the costumes and sets are fantastic, so beautiful. I could feel I was in the 15th century. Also, much of the drama was not filmed in England but on location in Belgium (Bruges, Ghent, and elsewhere). Home probably would have been cheaper but they needed authentic late medieval buildings and could find plenty of them still standing in Flanders. Even so, how much extra would subtitles have cost them? I could catch only about 90% of what was said, which means the BBC owes me the missing 10%. Maybe they should send me the script to pacify me. Anyway, an unfortunate omission. The White Princess has subtitles, so maybe others apart from myself complained. If so, power to the people, right on!The production is billed as history seen through the eyes of women, following the novel of Philippa Gregory (same title) on which the series is based. Fair enough. Three of the important leads are women: Elizabeth Woodville (the White Queen, consort to Edward IV); Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry Tudor (Henry VII); and Anne Neville, daughter of Richard Neville (Earl of Warwick) who initially marries a prince in the House of Lancaster (another Edward) then later as a young widow marries Richard III, her cousin. These women have to scrape, scratch and claw for what is theirs, or what they take to be rightfully theirs. Their manners are no better than those of the men, although they openly fight less (at least not with swords). None are people you’d want to know, with the possible exception of Elizabeth Woodville (although she’s an occultist who engages in witchcraft and divination to try to get what she wants). Maybe a Halloween friend only.Despite the iniquities and inequalities of our age, I’m glad of central heating, indoor plumbing, electricity, umbrellas, democracy, trial by jury, a free press, weekends, and the absence of the plague and executioner’s blade. They did their best to survive back then, but as this series shows so well, it was a constant struggle and The Simpsons were not part of their world. Civilisation would have to wait.