Watching The Boleyn Girls Lose Their Heads So We Won’t have To

Last updated on: February 28, 2008 at 12:13 am by Barbara Nicolosi

Watching The Boleyn Girls Lose Their Heads So We Won’t have To 2008-02-28T00:13:00-07:00 Barbara Nicolosi

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

For two hours, The Other Boleyn Girl is about nothing but sex. And I think I am going to recommend it. I found it to be a horrifying (in a good way) morality tale. (Karen – your kind of cinematic romp?) Because of it’s subject matter, it’s for grownups, although with a PG-13 rating, it doesn’t have nudity or graphic sex.

Based on the novel by Philippa Gregory, the movie tells a mostly unknown story of the family of Henry the VIII’s infamous second queen, Anne Boleyn, and how her father’s ambition, and her mother’s paralysis, ends up leading the whole family into every kind of tragedy.

Contrary to the Cate Blanchett Elizabethan movies that demonize the Catholic Church, The Other Boleyn Girl is a scathing indictment of the Tudor court, painting Henry in leotard-wearing Bill Clintonesque – narcissistic, deceitful, and willing to destroy his kingdom to satisfy his sexual appetites. His Queen, Catherine of Aragon, on the other hand, comes across as completely noble and really kind of wonderful – a devout woman trapped in a power-mad, licentious hell. On another level, the movie really, really made me glad that as a female, I was born in the mid-20th Century and not the mid-16th Century. Now, THAT was a damn tough time to be a woman.

I don’t know how much of the story here is truly factual, but it is compelling and kept my attention for the full two hours. The movie absolutely knows what it is about – basically a slow spiral into hell and death as the Boleyn family sinks deeper and deeper into insane choices to preserve their status and fortunes. At moments, the movie becomes so horrible that the audience we screened it with kept bursting into laughs that were really groans. People had to laugh because the characters’ choices had become so painfully, horribly absurd.

The cinematogroaphy was a bit annoying. Again, my kingdom for some wide shots! Somebody put up a billboard on Sunset somewhere – “To Directors: Just Because You Can Doesn’t Mean You Must.” I’m really tired of the unmotivated tight closeup. It seems to me a disrespectful attempt by the director to control the audience’s eye just a bit too much.

The performances here were mostly good. Scarlet Johansson completely steals the movie from Natalie Portman. Portman was badly miscast here as Anne Boleyn. She doesn’t have the sexual seductress thing going on, but comes off as more an all-American girl next door. I never bought that Henry would be so besotted with her. Eric Bana as Henry does a very good job, as does Kristin Scott Thomas as the mother of the three ill-fated Boleyn children.

There’s no real lyrical imagery or cool cinema grammar, but the movie is basically a well told story that leaves the audience believing profoundly that it is much better to be obscure and middle-class than rich, powerful, and without all honor.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 28, 2008

Time Out for That Hollywood Thing...

Next Post

February 28, 2008 Thoughts on Art From Three Very Smart Men

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 March 2012 October 2011 September 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 September 2010 August 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 November 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the primary form of transportation in Biblical times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Horse Donkey Chariot Camel