Goofs The film implies that Mary raised her niece Elizabeth. As royalty, Elizabeth had her own household. Margaret Bryon cared for her until she was four, then Kat Ashley took over her upbringing and education. Soundtracks Westron Wynde Traditional. User reviews Review.
Top review. Satisfying and entertaining, but it promised so much more. The Tudors are very chic at the moment. Little wonder then that this film attracts a stellar cast, including Eric Bana, Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman. So, why is it that this film, which is filled with great talent and potential, delivers only satisfaction? This was originally slated for release late last year, right in the middle of the awards season. Yet, for some reason, it was moved back.
Why this was done is not widely known, but, as the IMDb had the film listed as completed last autumn, I should think that the decision was taken that this film would draw more attention outside of the congested awards season. Watching the film, you are aware of the ambition and lavish costumes that would draw the gaze of Oscar.
But the film lacks punch, depth and the power to grip you the whole way through. That's not to say that it isn't entertaining. Far from it, the film is, for an hour and a quarter, perfectly pleasant, with intrigue, scheming and romance aplenty. A lot of the credit must go to the performances, which range from accomplished to fantastically enjoyable to watch. Natalie Portman is impressive as Anne Boleyn.
She ranges from scheming and nasty to genuinely sympathetic. Any thing further about her I would like to know. Your email address will not be published. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
George Boleyn, Religion and the Reformation ». April 14, at am. Rose says:. Erin says:. LadytoAnneBoleyn says:. Beth says:. April 14, at pm. Tudorrose says:. Apparently this weekend a lot of other people were inspired to seek out the answers to these 2 questions, and that is wonderful!
But I am glad to see that people flocked to the Anne Boleyn Files to check out the truth and get a more in-depth account of Tudor Times.
Get stuff, I too hope it pushes up your book sales. Although it is good that The Other Boleyn Girl caused so much of a debate yet again, I am totally amazed at the growing number of people who see historical fiction as historical fact without doing any research to find out the real story behind it. Now some fiction is just that: fiction and is meant to be fiction: Carry On Henry, the Prince and the Pauper, the Scarlet Letter and so on.
They are classic books, films or comedy, but they do not pretend to be anything else but a parady of the times or historical fiction for entertainment only. Even when one is about a real person, many of the facts are changed or invented to make it more dramatic, especially these days as such a thing could be made for TV.
In fact I think some authors write historical fiction with its dramatic affect in mind. Yes, TV take liberties with books and authors do not have control over productions, but people need to have more common sense than to believe TV films as direct evidence for fact.
It is the sort of thing you did 40 years ago while at school, take a film as fact: our teachers were too lazy to decipher things otherwise.
Fortunately I knew more about history than my history teacher and was not that stupid. I read, read, and read, fiction, but good fiction: Jean Plaidy was the fiction Queen in those days, but also some books on the people: Anne for example. I think history was in my DNA. I may have enjoyed historical fiction and most of it is very good, but these days I find I have to be more discerning not just about historical fiction but fiction in general.
The Other Boleyn Girl is fine if you look at it in that light that it is a good story based on a theory and nothing to do with fact. This is a book that Philippa Gregory believes put a true fact to the test: and has the theory that Anne had relations with her brother George in an incestual manner. That is fine if that is what she believes and the book is meant to be presented as that. However, there is a problem as Ms Gregory has been set up by documentaries as an expert on history: Anne Boleyn and Queen Elizabeth in particular, and that gives her books more authority.
So, people read them and watch the film and see it as a true depiction of the life of Anne Boleyn. That is a pity because it takes away the pleasure of simply looking at the film as a piece of entertainment and historical drama. However, there is value in the questions that the film raised and that are in your main article. The relationship between Henry Percy and Anne was actually handled in an interesting manner.
I believe that Anne was engaged to Percy and wanted to marry him, but that Cardinal Wolsey broke them up so as King Henry could pursue his own plight to her. But that she had the power to entrap the son of a noble house, while an entertaining idea, is of course nonsense.
The film went much further having them secretly married and having copulated, consumating that marriage, which would have made the marriage lawful. But this does not come up again later in the film, as it should have done. Thank you for laying out the facts Claire.
I admire your restraint in setting the record straight as I really could not bring myself to read another Phllippa Gregory book after reading her brutal character assassination of Anne.
Your email address will not be published. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. July 24, at pm.
0コメント