Since some folks have been catching advanced screenings and reviews are coming out in the news, I figured it was time to start an open thread. I may get a chance to catch it on Saturday, so I’ll post any thoughts I have then, if I do indeed get to see it.
Horrible. Horrible. Horrible. Ugh, the only redeeming parts where George Boleyn and William Stafford and thats only because they were easy on the eyes.
I feel it was a disgrace to the book. I LOVED the book, and the movie was just rushed and skipped sooooo many things!
Truly a waste of $20, 115 minutes and an absolute disgrace to an incredibly eventful and possibly the most exciting part of history… I was hoping so badly that it would be fantastic too. Sad.
As a historical piece, it’s laughable, and it’s not even faithful to the book, which, if not “true,” was nevertheless a page-turner with its own compelling internal logic.
But there were some good points. I liked the contrast between the two sisters, with Johanson’s massive head and invincibly bovine expression (no matter what emotion she was called on to express) competing with Portland’s small animated shrew, with her grimaces and twitches and tics that got completely out of control at the end. I thought it was a fair portrayal of some aspects of Anne — the sauciness, the boldness, the liveliness — but without the heft of, say, Dorothy Tutin, whom you could really imagine using “opprobrious language” to the Duchess of Norfolk and reducing another courtier to tears by using “language I would not have used to a dog.” This Anne was more the spiteful type, the kind who’s sweet to your face and then tells the king privately what a crap loyal servant you are.
However, there was nothing of religion — the entire Reformation, with its accompanying tortures, executions and destruction of tradition — took place entirely offstage, along with the fall of Cardinal Wolsey, the death of Catherine, the execution of Sir Thomas More, the rise of Cromwell and sundry other major bits of history. If you knew nothing of the story to begin with, you would come away from this film thinking that Henry was a very hard-done-by monarch and actually rather a fine fellow.
Some of the images were striking — Anne anointed Queen, looking serene and triumphant — and Mary’s confinement, with the women blocking up the windows. I could have done without the Monty-Pythonesque mob that accompanied George to his execution, and the snivelling portrayal of George.
I thought David Morissey as Norfolk was good. I last saw him swiving Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct II” in unconvincing style, but here his beefy face, puddingy complexion and squinty eyes had an authentic Holbeinesque flavor.
I am very glad to read these comments because I also thought it was poorly made. It was like a cheap soap opera. I really enjoyed the book though….
That’s it. I’m not going to waste my money. I’ll rent it when it comes out on DVD. I LOVE the book, I’ve read it four times and I’d read it again, gladly.
Lara (but not the Lara who writes this blog)
This is a review from the Guardian, UK. Haven’t seen the movie yet but loved the book.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_Film_of_the_week/0,,2262727,00.html
PS have just disovered this blog and as an fan of all things Elizabethan, think its wonderful
Regards. Librarian, Manchester, England.
I was also disappointed in the movie. I adore the book, even with all its historical inaccuracies, I don’t think the movie should be associated with the book at all. i did adore natalie portman in this. I thought she was fantastic.
I read the book and enjoyed it and I love my Tudor history. Yes, sometimes the movie didn’t follow book or history. However, we knew this going in, so, go to look at the clothes, etc. I actually liked this Thomas and Elizabeth Boleyn. The love/lust scenes with Mary and Henry are HOT!
I actually enjoyed the movie even though it doesn’t follow the book exactly, but what movie does? Even despite that the movie wasn’t completely loyal to history wasn’t a huge issue. I enjoyed how the film makers proved that there are both good and bad to every person no matter who they are and what they are after in life.
Ok, I have to ask, how is it so many people like the book? Maybe there is something wrong with me, but Ive read a few of Gregory’s books, and I thought they were all pretty bad. I am all for changing some history for dramatic effect, but I found these books, including the other boleyn girl, to be formulaic, cliched, and oddly misogynist. Each book seems to set up the same two female characters: one who is absurdly shrewish, calculating, and greedy for some vague idea of power; and another who is sweet and compassionate and just wants to live with her husband in the country. And we are always meant to sympathize with the latter. Then theres the weird incest thing…and the transparent screeds against the Protestant reformation in other books. But I digress. Please, people, argue with me and make me see the appeal! (Especially since I certainly know no one else with whom I can discuss these issues). And finally: foose, your review was on point and made me laugh…please write more reviews of anything. —-kate
I did enjoy it for sheer entertainment value, but thought it felt very rushed toward the end. I didn’t go in expecting it to be really historically accurate (after all, the novel itself isn’t very historically accurate), but the sticking point that kind of bugged me was that they glossed over how long it took for Henry to rid himself of Katherine of Aragon. In the movie, it made it look like it was about a month and then poof! she was gone.
They also didn’t explain how exactly he put her aside to marry Anne, nor portray just how difficult and time-consuming the process was. I went in to the movie determined not to be nit-picky, having a fairly good understanding of Tudor history, but this was one oversight I thought should have been rectified as it is a major plot point both historically and film-wise.
They also never bothered to mention that Mary’s first husband died, so her remarriage to William Stafford seemed random and sudden, not to mention illegal. It wouldn’t have been a big deal to mention that he’d died of the sweating sickness.
I will say, though, that I was pleasantly surprised at Natalie Portman’s Anne Boleyn. Initially I wasn’t sure she could pull it off, but I thought she did a good job. She managed to look formidable and whip-smart despite her petite frame. Which makes sense, actually, since Anne herself was petite. The portrayal of Thomas Boleyn as kind of a simpering, sniveling, spineless yes-man also deviated distractingly from history.
I also thought it was worth noting how in the book, you assume Mary is the “other” Boleyn girl, but in the movie it was an interesting twist in that it showed how Anne actually was the one who sometimes felt like the “other,” having been overlooked for her sister. In the movie, the sisters took turns being the “other” Boleyn girl.
I have been thinking about the movie some more. In retrospect, I think the historical set pieces, based on the actual sources, were done well (Catherine’s plea at Blackfriars, the execution — barring the letter at the end, which again had a certain Monty Pythonesque flavor, specifically when “Trotsky” is shot by the Red Army) but they are always done well. It’s hard for actors to miss with these scenes, they’re very powerful. (And it’s very hard to miss in the role of Catherine of Aragon; it was a good performance, but every Catherine I’ve seen has been good in pretty much the same way. Essentially, it’s a stylized performance — noble, dignified, outraged. Just once I’d like to see a Catherine who’s manipulative and conniving — as she was, but in a way more acceptable to the mores of the society than Anne’s behavior was.)
But the invented scenes in-between sagged. I don’t think the writers had any idea how people of the period actually lived or behaved outside the traditional set pieces (i.e., when they were not “on” for the benefit of an audience). So the result was too modern. The most hilarious example was Mary walking up and down with a howling baby Elizabeth, with Anne and Henry slagging each other off next door, as if that Harry Tudor dude and his babymamas are all living in the Hampton Court Trailer Park. You come away from something like “A Man for All Seasons” feeling edified, even if you don’t agree entirely with some of the characterizations. But this was all Lifetime Channel and Ricki Lake.
But I’ll watch or read anything to do with the Tudors. There’s always something good to take away and remember. Here it’s Anne’s coronation image, “that noble woman really anointed Queen,” as Sir Thomas More said, rather surprisingly.
For Kate –
I too found the book less than enthralling. I was fine until about half way in when it seemed to me to become repetitive. It seemed a hard push and a duty to finish. I’ve read The Boleyn Inheritance and found the approach clever but again my attention seemed to flag half way through.
For me, the absolute best fiction for this era is by Dorothy Dunnet, The Lymond series starting with The Game of Kings. There are 6 in the series and I, weirdly and compulsively, re-read the whole series every year or so. I highly recommend them. The research is impeccable!
Still may go see the movie for the costumes. Thanks for all the comments.
-kb
For kb-
Ok, Im glad I am not the only one who gnashed their teeth to get through the Gregory books. Especially when there are some many other quality historical fiction works out there. I have not read the Dunnett books but will now put them on my summer list. Ive been working my way through the Ursula Blanchard mysteries by Fiona Buckley (who also writes a series on medieval families under her real name, Valerie Anand), and I have been enjoying them immensely. Im also a quarter of the way through Threads, a very unique and almost post-modern take on Anne Boleyn and Henry: theres reincarnation and disjointed first-person narrative. So far I like it.
foose-
As usual, your thoughts on the film are dead on and wickedly funny. Hampton Court Trailer Park and the babymammas: Its funny (and also sad) because its true. Keep ’em comin.
I also highly recommend “Threads” by Nell Gavin. It is one of the most thought-provoking and creative books I have read in the past two years, and one of my favorites.
I actually liked the movie but I did like the book better. I do agree with everyone saying that it does not follow the book….but most movies do not because they need to fit so much into a small ammount of time. The book is not suppose to be historically accurat nor the movie. I think the way it was shot and the actors did a great job, I have seen it twice and would see it again.
Having read the book, and antcipating the movie, i was heartbroken! Wasted $7 to be disappointed! I left the theatre thinking i could have directed it better myself. I thought the only good point of the movie was the costumes. I couldn’t believe all the information and details they left out. Made me sad to think that if nobody had a clue who any of them were…they’d leave from watching the movie and think what they saw was true to history. I did enjoy the book, i found it a easy read..and interesting. But i’d rather read and watch something more true to history!