next »

[claragold]

Given that there isn't a thread called "We Watch Volumes," who has seen "The Other Boleyn Girl?"

I had seen the preview and had thought the preview itself was already very well done. I went to see the movie yesterday and felt like I got kicked in the stomach with the dramatic brutality, which I had not expected from the preview. I had thought maybe one or two heads might roll without much ado somewhere along the plot, but otherwise it would be kind of glossy, entertaining, and having a few dramatic moments. Bad surprise.

But I liked the construction of each of the main character's personalities.

Anyone else would like to comment on the movie? (or Philippa Gregory's novel ?)

[hmaria1609]

I've read the book twice but haven't seen the movie.  I enjoyed getting to know Mary Boleyn.
You can get fan reactions about the movie on Philippa's website.

[unspoiled]

I've seen it.  I liked it precisely because it wasn't awash in pretense.  Just what I needed at the time to relax with in between my zillion classes. 

I agree about the brutality. I think I've read that passage about ten times in different history books, but well, some actresses make it seem more real than others.  This is how it happened, however.  England wasn't always such a pretty place.

I'd say I got more out of this movie than I hoped.  But then again, I like Natalie Portman.  I like Scarlett Johansson as well but I felt her lines weren't as well written. 

One the other hand I just came back from a pretentious art movie and... forget it, no rants on your thread.

read my lips: no more classes!

[minnesotan]

The ending was so contrived that it nearly ruined the entire film for me.  The director really should have called it a day with the beheading scene.  At least that ending would have felt earned -- the crapola about Elizabeth came from nowhere, really. 

I'm not sure what the anachronistic feminist rhetoric was about, either.  I mean, yay for women today, but there were some arguments made by characters in the film that were couched in obviously late-20th C. terms.  It would be like a remake of "Roots" with Kunta Kinte going on about Affirmative Action.


6/10

[ab_grp]

I really enjoyed the novel, and just gave it to my mother to read.  That era, and Henry the VIII, have always interested me, and it was nice to look at it from a different perspective.  I'm looking forward to seeing the movie and comparing it to the novel and thinking about the comments posted here.  The whole system of how the king chose and was allowed to consort with the women (or girls in some cases) other than his wife, how Anne schemed her way into her eventual ruin, and the fall of the queen were all parts of the tale that were well told, but I agree that getting to know Mary Boleyn was one of the aspects that were most enjoyable.

[claragold]

I agree about the brutality. I think I've read that passage about ten times in different history books, but well, some actresses make it seem more real than others.  This is how it happened, however.  England wasn't always such a pretty place.

It's not that however, how much violence to include in a movie  regarding any historical epoch is always a writing and directing choice. I was frustrated because I was tricked by the preview which presents a much lower level of violence. If the director felt it was such a good idea to make his movie so violent, then go ahead and owe up to it right in the preview. 
 [/quote]

One the other hand I just came back from a pretentious art movie and... forget it, no rants on your thread.

If you would have liked to rant about it after "the Boleyn Girl," it must have been really awful...

[claragold]

I'm not sure what the anachronistic feminist rhetoric was about, either.  I mean, yay for women today, but there were some arguments made by characters in the film that were couched in obviously late-20th C. terms.  It would be like a remake of "Roots" with Kunta Kinte going on about Affirmative Action.

Unfortunately that is the standard Hollywood formula for most movies regarding epic drama. I would venture they would lose 80% of their potential audience if they did not do this and kept the rhetoric true to different past times and completely foreign to our own. Such movies would become like "foreign" films which usually do not interest or attrack the masses of average movie goers. The ancient Roman/Greek movies also come to mind -- it's funny enough to hear Cesar speak British English, for example, not to mention all the rest of the anachronistic baloney...

[minnesotan]

I'm not sure what the anachronistic feminist rhetoric was about, either.  I mean, yay for women today, but there were some arguments made by characters in the film that were couched in obviously late-20th C. terms.  It would be like a remake of "Roots" with Kunta Kinte going on about Affirmative Action.

Unfortunately that is the standard Hollywood formula for most movies regarding epic drama. I would venture they would lose 80% of their potential audience if they did not do this and kept the rhetoric true to different past times and completely foreign to our own. Such movies would become like "foreign" films which usually do not interest or attrack the masses of average movie goers. The ancient Roman/Greek movies also come to mind -- it's funny enough to hear Cesar speak British English, for example, not to mention all the rest of the anachronistic baloney...

To be fair, though, "Rome" was an enormous step forward for televised historical drama.  As much as I was sad to learn there would be no third season, I applaud HBO for putting forth the money and effort to make it the quality program it was.  Showtime has not been as devoted to its Tudors program, which is probably why I lost interest by the end of the first season.

To veer back toward the original topic, I want to note (since I forgot to in my original panning of the film) that my SO and I were both thoroughly entertained until the very end of the movie, and that she only had to restrain me from throwing the remote at the screen once or twice.  That's pretty good for a historical drama -- I tend to get a little excited at times when the history goes bad.  =)

[scheherazade]

The Other Boleyn Girl was a godawful book, and I will never get back the time it took me to read it.  Inaccurate far beyond what I consider acceptable (and I'm relatively liberal in that regard), terrible dialogue, shallow characters, and nothing but the most vapid concerns.  One could not drag me to see the movie.  And please, for the love of everything that is holy, do not use this book to learn anything.

Rome was amazing, I agree.  I hear there's a strong possibility for a Rome movie.

[claragold]

To be fair, though, "Rome" was an enormous step forward for televised historical drama.  As much as I was sad to learn there would be no third season, I applaud HBO for putting forth the money and effort to make it the quality program it was.  Showtime has not been as devoted to its Tudors program, which is probably why I lost interest by the end of the first season.

To veer back toward the original topic, I want to note (since I forgot to in my original panning of the film) that my SO and I were both thoroughly entertained until the very end of the movie, and that she only had to restrain me from throwing the remote at the screen once or twice.  That's pretty good for a historical drama -- I tend to get a little excited at times when the history goes bad.  =)

I haven't seen any of these two TV series, I did see a few praising media articles on them though. When I wrote British English, I was thinking of older movies, from the 50s, for example, with Rome or royals, Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra, what a joke! But, even with all that Hollywood 50s paraphernalia,  there are some good ones: have you seen the "Elizabeth" movie Errol Flynt  did? It's quite good for the 50s genre. I also like  Charleston Heston (they don't make viril actors anymore like in the past -- now there's an actor who could pull it off). Nowadays, they're either over stuffed Rambos or  pitiful  blond Pitts (which I refused to go see, because casting Mr. Ocean's 10+X as anything Greek or Roman is just too ridiculous).  I did see Gladiator, it reminded me of "Air Force 1" in ancient Rome, it was so cheesy in the modern rhetoric. And I also saw 20% of "300," I close my eyes during gratuitous gore, so a lot of current films I don't see more than a few minutes in a whole two hours :-)

[goldstein]

Errol Flynn's major "Elizabeth" movie was The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939), Elizabeth Taylor's turn as Cleopatra was in 1963.  Neither are 1950's style movies.

Cleopatra was/is a classic bad genre movie, over blown then with the Taylor/Burton love affair, and camp now.

I am rereading Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra just now and the more I read it the more I imagine Shakespeare envisioned Richard Burton's and Elizabeth Taylor's mid life death spiral.

[unspoiled]

The Other Boleyn Girl was a godawful book, and I will never get back the time it took me to read it.  Inaccurate far beyond what I consider acceptable (and I'm relatively liberal in that regard), terrible dialogue, shallow characters, and nothing but the most vapid concerns.  One could not drag me to see the movie.  And please, for the love of everything that is holy, do not use this book to learn anything.

Scheherazade, I haven't read the book (Philippa Gregory, right?), but I flipped through it at the train station stand and I tend to agree with your review of it.

The movie does serve as a carry-over for some dubious points in the book, such as presenting that there was indeed incestuous intent (although not necessarily incestuous practice) between Anne Boleyn and her brother George, for the purpose of bringing a son into the world and passing him as Henry's.  There is no evidence of that in any of the scholarly biographies of Anne, and it even appears that the incest charges were conveniently fabricated. 

Now, of course, this is why I am not an early modernist, and I look forward to other forumites (katherineparr?) for their take on this latest point.

I am not saying you would have liked this movie, but whether you may have just have tolerated it depends on how much you like Natalie Portman and Kristin Scott Thomas (who plays the girls' mother), really.  I go see almost everything they act in, which is how I land myself sometimes into blockbusters like The Other Boleyn Girl. 

[scheherazade]

I'm medieval/early modern, so I can tell you that the incest charges were almost certainly fabricated.  There was no evidence whatsoever for them.  Now, Katherine Howard...that's another story.

The "virginal Mary" is BS, too, since it is known that she had lovers at the French court, the French king among them.  Pretty much the whole thing is BS.  It's sad, because the real story is so good (better, in fact, than the fabricated one), I can't imagine why anyone would want to fictionalize it to such an extent.

[claragold]

Errol Flynn's major "Elizabeth" movie was The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939), Elizabeth Taylor's turn as Cleopatra was in 1963.  Neither are 1950's style movies.

I was speaking of the "50s genres" loosely, much more as a contrast to the formulas we see currently for movies set in ancient times or epic movies.

The Flynn movie does have an older style, so not surprising it's 1940, but if "Cleopatra" had been done 4 years earlier, it would have been literally in the 50's, and I don't see any major difference with its cheesiness compared to anything done in the 50s. And a Welsh "Marc Antony!" Another perfect example of what I was referring to.

[hmaria1609]

Here's an article from Philippa's website about the Boleyn sisters: http://www.philippagregory.com/research/research/fact-and-fiction.php