The Other, Ann Boleyn

I have not stopped thinking about this since last writing my review on The Other Boleyn Girl. I can't quite put my finger on what just irked me about the movie. And it's not my disappointment. I read a lot of novels. I see a lot of movies that were first novels, I'm used to the overall feeling of loss that comes when scenes and character development are cut for the sake of time or the dollar.

I continue to see these movies, because every once in a while, you get A&E's Pride and Prejudice, or Sense and Sensibility, or Harry Potter even, where the joy at seeing beloved characters come to life on film is worth them leaving out Harry giving his winnings to Fred and George, or reducing Ginny's part in OoTP to oddly powerful scenery.

I digress.

To the left here, we have Natalie Dormer, who plays Ann Boleyn in the Showtime series The Tudors. Which maybe if I hadn't been addicted to that, I might have loved Natalie Portman.

The thing is, Portman's Ann (possibly through no fault of her own) reduces Ann's amibtions to that of jealous sister. "That toy is mine! You can't have it!" And I'm acutely familiar with sisterly rivaleries, I assure you. I know what they look like. :) Dormer's Ann wants a unified England, is educated, speaks at the equal of men, and is ... desireable. The king is enraptured of her. She pets him, humors him, challenges him ... educates him. She manipulates him to her whims.

For the sake of time and a truncated story, Portman's Ann didn't do any of those things. And, in a completely personal opinion kind of way ... I think Dormer is the prettier of the two. Portman needs to eat a sandwhich. Or two. And a cookie.

Either script or director took the ambitions of the Boleyn's and reduced them to sisterly jealousy and teenage angst. Ann didn't act out of vengeance toward her sister (though that may have been a nice side bonus) she acted out of the political desires of her family, and sheer lust for power. Either instilled in her by generations of power hungry courtiers, or a self allowed trait.

I remember in the novel both girls have a mixed bag relationship. But always duty came first. Ann helped Mary secure the King, and Mary helped Ann keep him at bay. Always they were the 3 Boleyn's. They may have argued, quarreled, and fought over the same man in private, but to the world they were a unified front, a force to be reckoned with that kept the Seymour's at bay until Jane became the opposite of the bewitching Ann, and therefore exactly what the King desired.

But isn't it just so hysterical! The one thing that he wanted, the one thing he needed to secure his kingdom, a son ... and he murders and discards 5 different women because he blames them ... when all the while his own genetics were conspiring against him.

When that scientific advancement was made, I wonder what he did in his grave?

To come back around to Mary, in the novel everything that she does after her affair is over is motivated by her children. She betray's Queen Katherine because she knows that if she tells her Uncle about her treason with Wolsey he will allow her to go home to the country that much sooner and see her son.

The final straw that hardens her toward Ann is when Ann adopts / steals her son, in the hopes that will be enough to cement her as Queen. Without these motivations, we are left with what many are describing as a hollow retelling of history that doesn't develop characters so much as it throws them at you.

I think I need to watch the movie again. But the fullness that I get from the Tudors is a bright, bright light against the vapid, hollow story that is the 1 hour and 55 minutes of the movie. One of the comments here nails it for me, she's having trouble with the casting of the film because of the Tudors. Ditto for me.

I think Natalie is a terrific actress, and I think she did a really good job acting out the frustrations and the fatigue of Ann's final months / year at court.

But ... I'm much more interested in how Dormer is going to portray that. To give credit, Dormer also has 10 hours a year with which to get there. (10 episodes, each a full hour long). And Natalie only had 2 to get through 7 years at court.

I think I can stop writing about it now. I think. Maybe.

Point of note ... I'm reading Innocent Traitor, the story of Lady Jane Gray and Guilford Dudley and how his family throws Jane on the thrown. It's kind of interesting watching The Tudors from that angle, because the Duke of Suffolk, is Jane's Grandfather, and he just married Princess Margaret (Kings sister).

It's like watching a high school drama and knowing how it all plays out and being the smartest one in the room. Ah hindsight!