The Other Boleyn Girl

[prosodic]

...and I even have an Anne Boleyn icon, although it's Anne Boleyn (Natalie Dormer) from The Tudors and not Natalie Portman...

Still...

I just got back from the movie. I think if you have already read the book, you'll be very disappointed. If you haven't read the book yet, see the movie. You'll probably like it.

This isn't to say that I hated it. I found it entertaining enough, and I laughed at some of the audience's reactions to certain scenes - people who obviously don't know the whole history behind Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII, or who obviously hadn't read the book. As a whole though, this movie is NOTHING like the book at all. It shouldn't even have the same title.



Okay...WTF was up with Henry raping Anne? That did NOT happen in the book. That was completely unnecessary.

I love how Henry sends Mary's husband away...her first husband, that is. But there is no mention of him after this. So theoretically, Mary should still be married to him, but by the end of the movie, she is married to William Stafford and no explanation was given as to how this was possible. Historically, her first husband, William Carey, died, leaving Mary free to marry William Stafford. The novel covers this (he dies from the sweating sickness), the movie ignores it. I think this is a HUGE plot problem!

The way Henry meets Anne and Mary is different in the movie than it is in the book. In the book, they are at court when they meet the king (Mary, in fact, grows up in the English court, while Anne comes of age in the French court). In the movie, the king comes to visit the family at Rochford, is injured on a hunting trip (his injury is caused by Anne), and nursed by Mary. Neither of them step foot in court until after they have already met Henry.

Anne's marriage to Henry Percy is pretty much swept under the rug in this film, even though it was a much bigger issue in the novel, and ultimately, the catalyst for Henry seeking a way out of his marriage to Anne (the trumped up charges of incest and witchcraft follow shortly after). And speaking of incest...the movie barely dares to touch that issue. It's covered so much better in the novel.

Of course, none of the actors really look like the characters they are portraying, but this was particularly noticeable with Katherine of Aragon. Of course, I can't complain about this too much, because The Tudors is the same. They are looking for pretty faces that will get audiences in seats, and are not concerned with authenticity. But this Katherine seemed all wrong to me. Her look was all wrong. And in the novel (as with the real Katherine of Aragon), you should feel some sympathy for her, but I felt nothing for this woman at all. (Tangent: the actress who plays Katherine in The Tudors - Maria Doyle Kennedy - is absolutely amazing. Love her!)

I agree overall with mipplet...the pacing was off. The most boring parts of the plot dragged painfully on, while the really interesting parts (particularly the very brief period between Anne's coronation and death) went by in a flash. Also, many of the plot changes made no sense at all...why couldn't they have followed the book more closely?

Positive thoughts - the costumes were fantastic. And Anne's beheading scene was probably the best part in the entire movie...extremely well done.

So anyway, there is my take on it.

Comments

[prosodic.livejournal.com]

I really liked The Time Traveler's Wife too. I generally find that any movie based on a book is disappointing. But I often still like the movie on its own merits anyway. This one...well, I won't be rushing out to get the DVD.