The "Other Boleyn Girl" hit theaters today, and of course, I was in for the first showing. I've been anticipating this movie for over 2 years now, ever since I first heard it was in production.
Why can't directors seem to get it right when it comes to this time period?I understand completely the Hollywood concept of "dramatic" flair for the big screen. But there is a difference between "dramatic flair" and complete revisionist history. This movie makes the HBO series, "The Tudors" seem like a BBC documentary as far as factual information is concerned.
Now, the director is not all to blame. Phillippa Gregory does a damn good job of distorting the truth in this alternate interpretation of the story of Anne Boleyn. Her portrayal of Anne as ruthlessly ambitious and downright devilish is at odds with the softer portrayals favored by Jean Plaidy and other authors of this period. Anne's own diaries would suggest her true personality to be more of the unwilling victim and royal pawn in the schemes cooked up by her ambitious male relatives. Only when she discovered that her path in life would be to submit or face death or exile does she succumb to Henry's advances.
The opening scenes of the movie concern how Anne and Henry met. Well, there is debate on this, the movie selects Hever. I'll allow that. But this first it was most certainly not in front of the whole court and followed by a hunt in which Henry takes a tumble, to be nursed back to health by Mary, Anne's OLDER sister (the movie and book portrays her as the younger sister-this is false). Anne's ambitions are apparent from this very day, she indeed seems to find her father and uncle's schemes appealing and agrees to "hunt" his majesty. Hardly the case in reality. Anne was in love with and betrothed to Henry Percy at the time of her first meeting with Henry. The movie has it backwards. She does not "settle" for Percy only after Mary has "stolen" Henry. Another extremely annoying point of order here .Cardinal Wolsey is completely absent from this film. This is such a blaring error as to render the movie completely abominable. Wolsey is such a force in the entire drama, from the arrangement of the marriage AND the divorce, to all matters of state and religion in between to leave him out is both amateur and foolish, not to mention a missed opportunity for much needed plot thickening.
Running through the laundry list of other inaccuracies .Anne was not EXILED to France because she fumbled her attempt to seduce Henry. This is utterly ridiculous. It is well known that both Anne and Mary practically grew up in the French court from the time they were 12 to their late teens. Only then did the sisters join the English court, much less begin their dramas with the king. And she was not brought back to entertain Henry whilst Mary lay in with his child. Again Anne most strongly wanted to marry her first love, Henry Percy, Duke of Northumberland. But once Henry had set his eyes upon her and chose to make her his own, then and only then were her uncle and father's schemes put into motion. Their original intentions were to milk the long-going affair of her sister Mary for all it was worth.
Now, as for the "incest" theory. Gregory is taking a huge risk here by suggesting that the allegation levied upon Anne and her brother George was indeed founded in truth, borne out of Anne's desperation to get with child after her miscarriage. I do believe Anne was desperate to get pregnant quickly, and she was very close to her brother but this is a huge leap, and one true historians would never make. It also suggest that something other than Henry's brute desires were at play here when he charged them with treason, which is not the case. He simply wanted to be rid of Anne, to beget a male heir off of his next mistress.
And good gracious what of the rape scene? Not only is this disturbing, but so far fetched. Although Anne resisted for years, when she finally gave in to Henry, she did believe herself to be in love with him or at the very least, resigned to accept her fate. And Henry was completely besotted with her .why else would he break from Rome, Catholicism and risk his kingdom for anything less? No, he would not have raped Anne for their first sexual encounter. He was a brute, but he was most concerned of his image of the romantic courtier when it came to women's affections.
Finally, a note on the characters. Portman does an acceptable job portraying the character from the book even though this character is not the true Anne Boleyn. Johannson makes a lovely Mary and probably quite close to the real woman. As for Bana a sore disappointment. Bad casting, bad acting. Is this the same Bana of the acclaimed Munich and Troy? Where was the range? He comes across as flat and not well studied. Jonathon Rhys Meyers of the HBO Tudors blows him out of the water on all levels .sensuality, intensity and evil as Henry the 8th.
Why can't I just watch these movies and leave feeling entertained? I don't quite know I care too much about 15th century England for some reason. It became hardwired in me after watching Anne of the Thousand Days as a young girl. No Tudor movie since then has gotten close in accuracy or sheer entertainment since then. Burton and Bujold are classic and untouchable. But after watching this hack job, I have to say I am looking forward to the new season of the Tudors on HBO.
Why can't directors seem to get it right when it comes to this time period?I understand completely the Hollywood concept of "dramatic" flair for the big screen. But there is a difference between "dramatic flair" and complete revisionist history. This movie makes the HBO series, "The Tudors" seem like a BBC documentary as far as factual information is concerned.
Now, the director is not all to blame. Phillippa Gregory does a damn good job of distorting the truth in this alternate interpretation of the story of Anne Boleyn. Her portrayal of Anne as ruthlessly ambitious and downright devilish is at odds with the softer portrayals favored by Jean Plaidy and other authors of this period. Anne's own diaries would suggest her true personality to be more of the unwilling victim and royal pawn in the schemes cooked up by her ambitious male relatives. Only when she discovered that her path in life would be to submit or face death or exile does she succumb to Henry's advances.
The opening scenes of the movie concern how Anne and Henry met. Well, there is debate on this, the movie selects Hever. I'll allow that. But this first it was most certainly not in front of the whole court and followed by a hunt in which Henry takes a tumble, to be nursed back to health by Mary, Anne's OLDER sister (the movie and book portrays her as the younger sister-this is false). Anne's ambitions are apparent from this very day, she indeed seems to find her father and uncle's schemes appealing and agrees to "hunt" his majesty. Hardly the case in reality. Anne was in love with and betrothed to Henry Percy at the time of her first meeting with Henry. The movie has it backwards. She does not "settle" for Percy only after Mary has "stolen" Henry. Another extremely annoying point of order here .Cardinal Wolsey is completely absent from this film. This is such a blaring error as to render the movie completely abominable. Wolsey is such a force in the entire drama, from the arrangement of the marriage AND the divorce, to all matters of state and religion in between to leave him out is both amateur and foolish, not to mention a missed opportunity for much needed plot thickening.
Running through the laundry list of other inaccuracies .Anne was not EXILED to France because she fumbled her attempt to seduce Henry. This is utterly ridiculous. It is well known that both Anne and Mary practically grew up in the French court from the time they were 12 to their late teens. Only then did the sisters join the English court, much less begin their dramas with the king. And she was not brought back to entertain Henry whilst Mary lay in with his child. Again Anne most strongly wanted to marry her first love, Henry Percy, Duke of Northumberland. But once Henry had set his eyes upon her and chose to make her his own, then and only then were her uncle and father's schemes put into motion. Their original intentions were to milk the long-going affair of her sister Mary for all it was worth.
Now, as for the "incest" theory. Gregory is taking a huge risk here by suggesting that the allegation levied upon Anne and her brother George was indeed founded in truth, borne out of Anne's desperation to get with child after her miscarriage. I do believe Anne was desperate to get pregnant quickly, and she was very close to her brother but this is a huge leap, and one true historians would never make. It also suggest that something other than Henry's brute desires were at play here when he charged them with treason, which is not the case. He simply wanted to be rid of Anne, to beget a male heir off of his next mistress.
And good gracious what of the rape scene? Not only is this disturbing, but so far fetched. Although Anne resisted for years, when she finally gave in to Henry, she did believe herself to be in love with him or at the very least, resigned to accept her fate. And Henry was completely besotted with her .why else would he break from Rome, Catholicism and risk his kingdom for anything less? No, he would not have raped Anne for their first sexual encounter. He was a brute, but he was most concerned of his image of the romantic courtier when it came to women's affections.
Finally, a note on the characters. Portman does an acceptable job portraying the character from the book even though this character is not the true Anne Boleyn. Johannson makes a lovely Mary and probably quite close to the real woman. As for Bana a sore disappointment. Bad casting, bad acting. Is this the same Bana of the acclaimed Munich and Troy? Where was the range? He comes across as flat and not well studied. Jonathon Rhys Meyers of the HBO Tudors blows him out of the water on all levels .sensuality, intensity and evil as Henry the 8th.
Why can't I just watch these movies and leave feeling entertained? I don't quite know I care too much about 15th century England for some reason. It became hardwired in me after watching Anne of the Thousand Days as a young girl. No Tudor movie since then has gotten close in accuracy or sheer entertainment since then. Burton and Bujold are classic and untouchable. But after watching this hack job, I have to say I am looking forward to the new season of the Tudors on HBO.