Princes
in the Tower (2005)
Our rating: 3 out of 5
Rated: TVMA
reviewed by Charity Bishop
To this day, historians debate what became of the missing princes in the
tower. It remains one of the greatest mysteries surrounding the Bloody
Tower, in the famous Tower of London buildings. The two heirs to the
throne later governed by Richard III were taken there for their
"protection" to await their coronation -- and were never seen again.
This docudrama recounts the controversy thereafter.
A handsome blonde, blue-eyed young man has appeared claiming to be the
missing Duke of York. Gathering forces both in Ireland and Scotland, and
severely damaging potential alliances between England and Spain due to
his threat to Henry VII's rule, Richard (Mark Umbers) is hunted down and
brought to the Tower to be interrogated by his majesty's closest
associates. Most of his memories of his imprisonment are hazy, but he
both looks enough like the missing prince and is sincere enough in his
stories that suspicion that he may be the rightful king has the Tudors
concerned. The man chosen for his interrogation is Dr. Argentine (John
Castle), who was personal physician to the boys before their
disappearance. Writing down the account is the ambitious but quiet
Thomas More, and in attendance is the Spanish ambassador (Nicholas
Rowe).
Enough reasonable doubt is created to involve Richard's sister, Queen
Katharine (Nadia Cameron-Blakey) in the proceedings. She is astounded
with how like her brother the man is, and remains convinced that he is
speaking the truth, a fact that troubles King Henry (Paul Hilton). If it
is indeed Richard, he is the rightful heir to the Plantagenet throne,
and Elizabeth would have him step down, but to do so would endanger
their sons. What unfolds is one of the most fascinating and equally
gruesome single events in history, as we learn the truth behind the
appearance of a usurper, and what his threat meant to the Tudor line.
This was produced as a docudrama rather than a documentary or a straight
drama, so it is a blend of both. As a result, the production values in
terms of filming are rather shoddy. The camera angles are not that
interesting and the finished result has a rather grainy look to it that
I assume was meant, in order to make it look old. More exasperating are
photographs used in the narration instead of flashbacks, which would
have been much more interesting to look at. (The boys actually playing
on the green, rather than a photograph of them doing so.) However, once
I realized that was the flow of the production (along with occasional
"information" text to inform us of certain historical facts or rumors),
I really was able to become involved with the story and it kept me in
suspense for the eventual outcome. Was this man really an immaculate
imposter, or the true Duke of Richmond? What happened to the princes?
By no means does this story provide all of the answers, because even
though the bodies of both boys are presumed to have been found two
hundred years later, there is not yet any DNA evidence to prove their
identities. There were quite a few things that I loved about this film.
I have never seen Elizabeth Plantagenet depicted before, and it amazed
me how many visual links were drawn between her and her famous
granddaughter, Elizabeth I. The acting was also extremely good, much
more so than I anticipated from such a low-budget production. The music
was also memorable. Content-wise there is not much to be concerned
about. The opening scene has one of the boys being smothered with a
pillow. This is shown in later flashbacks as Richard describes his
brother's death. There is a photograph of a boy's bloody mouth and
suspicion that he may have been poisoned. There is a little crudeness in
the fact that several astrologers are shown studying the king's bowel
movement in order to predict his future fate.
When asked to give an impression of his father, Richard replies that he
would f**k anything alive, and eat anything dead. Elizabeth later repeats
this in whispered amusement. More disturbing is when two guards come in to
beat Richard to a bloody pulp. We see nothing but the clubs being lifted,
but the result is that his face is so bloodied and bruised that he is later
unrecognizable. There's an extreme close up of a man's face as he is being
hanged. In some respects, the eventual outcome is slightly disturbing but it
did make me curious about the princes, enough to read what little is
suspected of their eventual fate. I suspect viewers of this production, like
me, will have the curiosity peaked enough to become fascinated.
|