Sorry for not blogging more often lately. The usual reasons apply - work, deadlines, other commitments, and I haven't had time to read much, either. And my poor neglected manuscript - good thing I'm ahead of schedule on that.
Mark and I went to see The Other Boleyn Girl last night up in Savoy, something I considered a professional obligation. While I can write a decent book review, I won't even make the attempt to do a full-fledged writeup of a film… besides, I think the NY Times review speaks for itself. So, instead, I'll point out a few thoughts that occurred to me while watching, and since.
Here Be Spoilers, below. You've been warned.
-----------------
While walking into the theater, I was surprised to note how crowded it was (this hardly ever happens with period pieces shown in area cinemas) and how most of the audience consisted of high-school and college-age girls. I was pleased to see so much interest in historical topics (and Gregory's novel in particular) from a younger crowd, although their reactions to certain scenes made it clear they didn't know much about the characters or period, and that most hadn't read the novel. For example, the audience gasped loudly when the suggestion of possible incest between Anne Boleyn and her brother, George, was raised - which anyone who'd read the book would have known.
Despite this supposedly shocking moment, the film does play it safe, more so than Gregory's novel did, and not just in that instance. Johansson's Mary Boleyn = meek, quiet, and biddable; Portman's Anne = outspoken, witty, daring, and ambitious. Making them polar opposites simplifies things, and rendered the movie superficial. Gregory's version of Mary was more well-rounded, and therefore more interesting; I found it hard to root for either sister, despite it being blatantly obvious that their father and uncle were using them to fulfill their own ambitions ("pimping them out" is the phrase the NYT review used, and rather aptly).
The pacing was very uneven; Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon flashes by within minutes. The film moves very quickly from Anne's pressuring him into breaking with the church, to Catherine's protests to the Pope, to Anne's being crowned, whereas Mary's life as (and adjustment to being) his mistress takes up the entire first half. Furthermore, what happens to William Carey, Mary's first husband? In one scene, King Henry, while in bed with Mary, asks her teasingly if she'd mind if he sent her husband away from court. Carey's never mentioned again, although one assumes (in the film) that he died, because William Stafford indicates his interest in her not long after. This is reminiscent of soap operas in which a child who's become superfluous to the storyline gets sent off to boarding school, whereupon *poof* he's erased from their universe entirely. Maybe in the director's cut on DVD, we'll find out about William's untold demise, as well as the mysterious third child running around in the English countryside in the final scene (which parallels the three Boleyn siblings, shown running around in the same field in the film's opening). One's Mary's son, presumably; the other's Princess Elizabeth (because Mary Boleyn flees the court with her!). Mary never gives birth to daughter Catherine in the movie, so who knows.
Kristin Scott Thomas (Elizabeth Boleyn) and Ana Torrent (Catherine of Aragon) play their roles with conviction, stealing every scene they're in. Natalie Portman, of the three leads, does the most believable job; Johansson portrays Mary rather limpidly. Bana is attractive enough, but the role doesn't suit him. Elements of foreshadowing (visceral scenes of cleavers chopping meat, just as King Henry first arrives at the Boleyn home for a royal visit) were cheap and silly. Pretty costumes; some stunning imagery of riders along the English coastline at twilight; lots of drama and intrigue, at the expense of character, but about what I expected.
Even considering its own slant on the events, the book was more enjoyable. Perhaps I should have seen The Other Boleyn Film instead, aka the TV miniseries; I understand it was better.
Thanks for your thoughts on this film, Sarah. I'm hoping to see it when it comes out in the U.K. next week. Have you read this article by Philippa Gregory on the book and the film in the London Times? It's interesting on the different ways films and novels treat stories.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Sarah, that was an interesting piece. It is true - the book tells Mary's story, while the film is primarily Anne's... which turns the film into a tale of how Mary was eclipsed by her sister, rather than one of self-discovery. It also makes the ending of the film (Mary's survival) not as much of a triumph as it could have been.
ReplyDeleteps - I'd be interested to hear what you think once you see it!
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'll wait for the DVD on this one. I have a feeling that the missing William Carey would bug me too much.
ReplyDeleteThe relationships between Mary and her two husbands aren't explored at all in the film, unlike in the book. Maybe they felt nobody would notice him missing.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty amused by the post by "lostinomaha" on the IMDb site. Someone else looking for the lost Mr. Carey, to no avail.
I was on the fence about seeing this and now I know I'll probably wait for the DVD. I watched the first 3 episodes of the Tudors last night and I was so pissed off, I think I need to swear off historical adaptations for awhile.
ReplyDeleteI haven't watched the Tudors, for that reason. I know there are people who say it's campy fun and all, but others have said they're learning a lot about history from it, which scares me!
ReplyDeleteIn your last paragraph are you referring to the version that was made for British TV? I have that version and thought it was just awful.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the current version for what it was - entertainment - although there were a couple of parts I didn't like (the "sex" scene between Henry and Anne for one). I wouldn't say it was a great movie or anything, but I thought it really could have been worse.
Yes, that's the one I meant. What didn't you like about it?
ReplyDeletescarlet and natalie in one movie.. hmmmm..
ReplyDeleteWow. I completely couldn't agree more! When I first read your review - before going to see the movie last night - I thought "HA! Imagine an entire movie theater actually gasping." I'd never seen that happen before. And what do you know? The ENTIRE theater gasped at exactly the same point you said they would. I had to come home and show my husband your review! Although I enjoyed the movie, I found the foreshadowing quite heavy-handed. And the mother really does steal every scene she's in.
ReplyDeleteHah! Wasn't that the funniest thing? It really was the entire theater! (Okay, except me and maybe a couple other people, but still)
ReplyDeleteIn the book, I don't remember Elizabeth Boleyn making such witty asides, but it did liven up the movie quite a bit.