Well, I just returned from seeing the newest cinematic period piece The Other Boleyn Girl. Was it pretty? Absolutely. Was it good? Well, I have to agree with many people who said it could have been better. I, unfortunately, am in a position of unenviable bad luck. Like most movies that I know are based upon a book, I read the book in advance. One of these days, I'm going to learn to stop doing that.
The Other Boleyn Girl is based upon the novel of the same name by Phillipa Gregory, who has authored other historical fiction books, including the sequel to this one,
The Boleyn Inheritance. Her prose is involving, descriptive, and totally addicting. She wove a tale that was politically intriguing, romantic at its core, and completely believable. At least about as much as one can believe something that is written from a fictional point of view. However, there were several differences, including some important omissions, that I feel it necessary to draw your attention to them.
Another way the book and movie differ is their portrayals of Catherine of Aragon, the wife of Henry VIII. Catherine is one of the most tragic figures in history, and the movie completely glossed over her with but a couple interesting bon mots tossed toward the two sisters. However, in the book, Catherine is fully aware of what is happening and why it is so. There are chapters upon chapters that were written about Catherine fighting tooth and nail to save her marriage, even going so far as to almost cause war. The political intrigue alone of this character should have been somewhat salvaged, as it could have made this movie so much more watchable than it currently is.
The final glaring difference I want to point out is about George, Anne's brother. I am sure that Jim Sturgess of Across The Universe fame is a wonderful actor, but the character of George was totally off from the portrayal from the book. In the book, George is not only a willing participant in the schemes of his sister Anne, but he is one of the chief schemers. Also in the book, but absent from the movie, is the ascertain that George is homosexual. While George being a poof does not really matter too much, it does make the lengths that he and Anne finally resort to much more emotional. Before you ask, in the book George and his sister Anne do bump uglies, resulting in a “monster-baby” that I had hoped would have found its way into the film. I could continue to go on and on about the differences between the book and movie, such as the total lack of Cardinal Wolsey in the movie, but I will not. Instead, I will look at yet another chronicle of the life of Anne Boleyn. It is a little series on Showtime called The Tudors.
The Story:
Well, the movie version of The Other Boleyn Girl is right out. I felt that there was a lot of unnecessary dialogue and not enough emotional punch to make it work completely. The Tudors has a slightly better story, but it is needlessly fleshed out to its maximum extent. Granted, it is an ongoing show and that is one of necessities for longevity. So, without further ado, I proclaim the book version of The Other Boleyn Girl the winner. The book was really quite long, but it was never boring.
The Actors:
Well, since the book has no actors, it is out of the running for this category. However, the movie version of The Other Boleyn Girl does have them, and they all pretty much suck. Eric Bana's Henry VIII was a bit fierce, but ultimately pathetic. The Boleyn sisters had no emotional depth whatsoever, and the whole supporting cast would have been better if they had pulled them from the Bristol Renaissance Faire. However, The Tudors, while not completely accurate historically, is the superb cast. Jonathan Rhys-Myers plays a spoiled and pissy Henry VIII, which is pretty damn close to what he was supposedly like. Sam Neil's Cardinal Wolsey is the perfect foil to Natalie Dormer's scheming Anne Boleyn. Even Jeremy Northram's Sir Thomas More simmers with intensity. Truly superb.
Accuracy:
When something like this is written for entertainment purposes, several facts are usually adjusted for the enthrallment factor. While both versions of The Other Boleyn Girl and The Tudors tend to... expand upon the existing facts, I personally believe that The Tudors is the more accurate out of the three. It has most of the major players of the time, the major characters seem to be portrayed as they were in life, and the costumes appear to be period accurate, if not a bit too colorful.
My Recommendation:
Well, if it is not abundantly apparent to you by this juncture, I would suggest that you read The Other Boleyn Girl by Phillipa Gregory and watch The Tudors on Showtime. Both are exceptionally entertaining, even if they do play it fast and loose with the facts. By all means, ignore the filmed version of The Other Boleyn Girl until after you have read the book. If you have done that, then go ahead and watch the movie. You'll have as much fun as The Wife and I did when we saw it. We laughed and pointed out the newest fabrications and generally had more fun doing this than watching the actual movie. Tread with film carefully, but cable and prose provide the best rewards.
Comments
"The Tudors" VS "The other boleyn girl"...my point of view...
i have just watched "the other boleyn girl", cause i am really interested in this period of the english history. that's why i have already cautiously watched both seasons of "the tudors"series, and compearing the two is quite inevetable.
so, ok. i am not a kind of expert historian, or nattionalist english freak, cause i am not even english. what i am gonna say is just my point of view, a point of view of an ordinary person, and i hope this review will be usefull for many people.
so, lets start with the movie. "the other boleyn girl" was bassed on a novel. as a consequence, it was not historically accurate. neither was the movie. very very very inaccurate. "the tudors" series was more historically accurate, but not completely. however, i saw that the director and writters of the series made lots of efforts to make the series historically true enough but also tempting to the eye of an everyday person. so, as a conclusion, none of the two was completely historocally accurate, and i think we should let this behind and see all their other aspects.
what bothered me the most in "the other boleyn girl" was that it's main purpose was to make an impression. in the centre of attention always was: the King's love life, the beautiful women that made the King happy and nothing further than that. but the movie failed to achieve even this primary goal (making an impression) because of all this darkness the movie was in. and with that i don't mean only the cloudy sky, but the colours around the actrors and the costumes. it seemed to me that the director wanted to be historically correct only concering the costumes and surroundings, whereas nothing else was historicaly correct in the movie, except for the names and some few, very few facts. yeah, the dark colours of the dresses, the fact that they didn't reveal much of the desirable flesh of women, the cute little "hats" women wore, the feminine "skirts" the men wore, all these were very similar to what the clothes must have been at these times. but they gave an "old-fashioned" and strict feeling to the movie, and that was not its intention.
on the other hand, "the tudors" series, chose to have some more "liberal" perspective over the costumes, but were more "strict" concerning the historical facts. the director of "the tudors" series followed a more smart "strategy", i think, by giving to the eyes of the audience beautiful, breathtaking, charming presenses, as Nataly Dormer (stunning!) and Jonathan Rhys-Myers (so desirable...), court-ladies on revealing dresses, court-men and Sirs with nice hair, beards, posture, and lustfull attitude, as Henry Cavill, and of course by making the strict atmosphere of the palace go away by showing lots scenes on the countryside. the funny thing is that through all this pleasant, eye-catching atmoshpere, the script bombarded the audience with facts and political, historical, and religious information, that didn't stand in the way of the entertaining purpose of the series. now, even though "the other boleyn girl" gave no information like these to the audience, it felt to be boring sometimes, with unesessairy dialogs and gaps in the script, that left the audience wondening.. for example, what happened to Mary's huseband..?
and now i believe it's time to comment on the actors. on the role of the King we saw Eric Bana and Jonathan Rhys-Myers. well, obviously none of them reminded of the actual "Henry". they were both goodlooking and surely not fat and fair-haired. however, Jonathan Rhys-Myers fitted more for the character of the King, arrogant and fearless, lustfull and easily manipulated and deceived, but also stubborn and fierce. while watching the series, you could actually believe Jonathan Rhys-Myers was a man with these characteristics, you could see it from his moves, from his sight, his gestures, the way he yealed and "charmed" his.... "court-harem". he was powerfull and dynamic, in contrast with Eric Bana, who was way too quiet, calm and "passive" to be Henry. he seemed like he didn't have the poise, the nerve, Henry was said to have. it is sad for me to say this, cause i always liked Eric more that Jonathan, i always believed that Eric was a better actor, and Jonathan was just a very handsome actor. it seems that the role of "Henry" wasn't for Eric Bana. such a pity...
now lets talk about the role of Anne Boleyn. -one of my favourite historical royal personalities-. it was played by Natalie Portman (great actress by the way) and Nataly Dormer, whom i have never heard about since i watched "the tudors" series. now, if i hadn't seen "the tudors" series, and have only watched the movie, i would definitely say Natalie Portman was the best Anne it could be. excatly as the real Anne must have been. pretty, but not too much, independant but not too much, smart and as charming as it can get. but Nataly Dormer was like... wow! it was like this role was made for her. the way she talked, the way she moved. wild and stunning. Nataly Dormer was born fot that part, of Anne Boleyn.
just now i understood how many lines i have already written...i am bambling again, as always....
so, lets make our conclusion here. "the other boleyn girl" was a good movie. not a great movie, but a good movie. and the clues that make it a good movie were only its actors. : Eric Bana, Natalie Portman, and the beautiful, "full-lipped" Scarlett Johansson. and the director didn't even promote them properly. maybe if he had persented them differently, maybe if it had given a more colourful and "sun-beamed" perspective to the movie, maybe then the movie we would have seen could have been much more satisfying. that's what i believe of course.. but "the tudors" series... well, "the tudors" series rightfully have been given so many awards. very well set, very vivid, very entertaining but also very illuminating about those troubled times, excellent performances from the actors and actresses, and i could go on and praize "the tudors" series for days...
WHAT I RECOMMEND
so, this is what i believe about "the other boleyn girl" and "the tudors" series. if i were to suggest one of the two, i would surelly and undoubtedly suggest "the tudors" series. and don't forget.. there is a third season coming!
i hope i helped those who didn't know which one to choose, and gave motive to those, who already have watched them, to think about them from a different perspective.
so, keep loving the arts!
?
Huh? I kind of lost track for a bit there...
Are you recommending the show or the movie? Both?
I repeat. Huh?!?