Armour on The Tudors (show) - realistic? -- myArmoury.com

Adam D. Kent-Isaac · Posted: Fri 29 May, 2009 12:22 pm Post subject:

Whooooa, daddy! That is nuts. I had no idea such harnesses existed; and the reproduction of it on the show is actually surprisingly accurate. You're right, the helmet is quite odd though; it doesn't look like any helm I've ever seen from any time period.

I read in an interview that most of the armour on The Tudors was made from aluminum.

S. Christiansen · Posted: Fri 29 May, 2009 2:18 pm Post subject:

Chad Arnow · myArmoury Team

Maurizio D'Angelo · Posted: Fri 29 May, 2009 4:43 pm Post subject:

Leo Todeschini · Industry Professional

Way before I was making historical reproductions I was a special effects and modelmaking technician and supervisor and still am sometimes, I have supplied props both historical and otherwise for loads of things, supplied a few props for 'The Tudors' and am currently working as an armourer on a Ridley Scott/Robin Hood film, though I don't generally get involved in films. I will try to cover as many points as possible from a few peoples standpoints.

1. Viewer. The average documentary is written and presented so that an 8 year old can understand it and that is how you get easy access to peoples heads in this channel surfing world and importantly stop them turning over. One of the ways you do this is you stick to conventions and languages. If you need to identify a man as a baddie, you stick him in an ankle length black leather coat - job done. The incendiary compound for fire arrows that I make is from a German 15thC recipe, so I know it is right and when shot appears to nearly go out with little visible sparks, fire or smoke, on landing it fizzles for a couple of seconds and burts back into flame. We all know fire arrows blaze through the sky don't we? QED if you showed a real fire arrow, watchers would think the director was being silly.

Give the viewers what they expect, anything else confuses them.

2. Actor. Big names actors get what they want pretty much and if that is something ananchronistic, well thats just the way it is. And nobody likes to wear armour for 12 hours a day for months on end, especially somebody who is not used to wearing it. You can bet your bottom dollar that the armour was lightweight and fibre glass and that there were a few sets of each style. There are also practical considerations like will it fit the stuntman/in fact lots of stuntmen and 'How quickly can I go to the toilet?'

3. Director. Directors make films for entertainment, not documentaries for education.

It endlessly saddens me to see a coventry helm worn in the 12thC (as in my current production) or Gladiatorial helm worn in the 10th as in 'The 13th Warrior' but that is me, joe public couldn't care - almost. Right at the beggining of the thread it was mentioned that 'it was not right and something felt wrong'. I absolutely believe that people who know nothing about a subject still have a subconsious eye for detail that subliminaly effects their opinions, and so 'something felt wrong'. When I lay patterns onto leather work I rarely measure it out and certainly don't mark it as perfectly as a machine but this works to create a beleivable object. Use a machine generated pattern and although perfect, it looks out of place. It is all subconcious connections and so I believe that a film production should strive to make every detail as correct as possible.

That is my view and you decide who is right; I work in a shed at the end of my garden, Ridley could buy Oxforshire and me with it if he wanted........

Apparently he does not like 'Orange' and so no orange props or cosumes are presented. It is one great mans vision of what the public will like it is not a replaying of history however much it purports to be just that.

4. Costume designer. This colour doesn't go with that, poor people all wore sack cloth, hessian is everywhere, most people either wore old damask from the curtain supply shop or leather or mud and of course everthing in the past was badly made and dirty. See point 1. Everyone is chasing Oscars/BAFTAS/Golden Globes and an accurate but uninspiring costume does not get you that. If you just copy the past - well anybody can open a history book and do that, you have to reinvent the past.

The next reality check is how big is my budget? Could you find an armourer capable of making 3 sets of each armour for the principles, at least 3 sets for the stunt guys, thats 6 per suit. So lets say this programme shows 6 suits of armour, that is 36 suits that would be required with a probable lead time of 3-4 months from order to delivery. Anybody here know who could custom make that and be prepared to drop all their other work? Your prop department has to be able to make it. Fibre glass or possibly aluminium for some is the way but even that is expensive, so the next route is to look in your cupboards and see what is left from the last historical film you did and what the prophouses have to hire. That will dictate some aspects of a film however big the budget.

5. Armourer. The Peterson and Oakeshott typologies say it all, there was a high level of standardisation which is often desired for the minor characters, background and extras for simplicity of doing the job but each principle has to look different. This is done by making their equipment different and if this steps outside history a bit it doesn't matter as long as the central message of who is who is clear. The film I am on at the moment has the English using white arrow fletches and the French using brown, making any skirmish more understanable to the viewer. Amusingly the French are portrayed as dirtier than the English, again I assume as visual language.

6. Researcher. They are generally fairly low down the foodchain and so their response is naturally a deal of the 'yes man' way of behaviour. They look for pictures and suppliers, possibly a bit of background information and they look for what they have been briefed to look for by their head of department/senior colleague. For example boss to researcher. 'The Director wants a slightly odd looking sinister suit of armour, find me something funky; Oh by the way I loved that fluted/slitty hemet you found yesterday, lets use that with it, but lose the neck guard as it is chafing the actors neck' The result is what you see.

7. Us all. Like all of us, people find their own specialisations and so if you are good at doing history, more work in that line is offered and before long you have just done your 10th rennaissance film/drama - and you are bored. You know exactly what sword to buy from whom and how long and how much and what the options are and...... and..... and....... 'I just want to do something different'

As a last note I was chatting to a Phd student doing a paper on 'Hollywood and history' and he asked me which I thought was the most accurate historical film. After a bit of thought I decided it was 'Lord of the Rings'

Sorry for the essay, but there is a lot of ground to cover. Also sorry to anybody from the industry I have offended, this is of course an amalgamation and generalisation.

Regards

Tod

Adam D. Kent-Isaac · Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 12:08 am Post subject:

Oh, no reason to apologize - it's fascinating stuff to read. Thanks for posting that.

Eric Spitler · Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 6:00 am Post subject:

Lafayette C Curtis · Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 9:12 am Post subject:

Daniel Michaelsson · Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 12:20 pm Post subject:

Maurizio D'Angelo · Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 1:27 pm Post subject:

Dear Leo
thanks for your post.
Now we have a broader thought.
But I think that cinema and television on their historical aspects have a role to play. But this is also educational.
Not explained why some films are more accurate than others.
An actor of the 13th century could also smoke a Marlboro on the scene, but knows that he exposed to criticism from those who know that did not exist at the Marlboro. Wink

Without wanting to be controversial or offensive.
Maurizio

Leo Todeschini · Industry Professional

Nat Lamb · Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 5:06 pm Post subject:

Chad Arnow · myArmoury Team

Lafayette C Curtis · Posted: Sat 06 Jun, 2009 3:49 am Post subject:

Maurizio D'Angelo · Posted: Sat 06 Jun, 2009 4:51 am Post subject:

Adam D. Kent-Isaac · Posted: Wed 10 Jun, 2009 8:10 pm Post subject:

I'm up to the third season now...honestly I've been enjoying the show, as ridiculously inaccurate as it is; but this jousting scene in Episode 8 of Season 2 seriously made me want to cry:

AAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

I can understand that they're operating on a budget here but this is ridiculous, IMO. That looks like something from the toy aisle at a supermarket. Not to mention that you would have to be suicidal to wear that at a tilt. Part of me is wondering if Showtime's costume designer was playing a practical joke on them.

In other news, I was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC two days ago; I spent two and a half hours just in the armour section. It was unbelievable. I noticed things I never could have imagined; for instance the gilded Greenwich harness made for Henry VIII but said to be a gift for Galiot de Genouillac of France has all kinds of interesting images etched into the breastplate, including babies and an old, bald man. There is a Maximilian harness there that is absolutely enormous, around 6'2" tall and with a massive chest; the biggest I've seen. Sir James Scudamore's armour is there and is also very imposing in terms of size. Some, like that of Emperor Ferdinand I, are quite small. Sir George Clifford's black-and-gold garniture was incredible to see up close; but I think the display case it was in should have had better lighting.