Movie Thoughts : The Other Boleyn Girl

[orangerful]

First, the unspoilery things about OBG:
- Costumes were pretty but what was UP with the lighting? I think they were going for that grainy BBC Mini-series from the 1980s look.
- DID EVERY SINGLE SCENE HAVE TO START/END WITH AN OBJECT IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA?? I mean, WTF. Did the director just show up and shoot the movie with no prior blocking so he didn't know that the large POLE would be in the shot? It went from a style to stupidity after about the 10th shot.
- Scarlet and Natalie are gorgeous. Too bad this movie was a total waste of their time. Clearly they just wanted to wear the pretty dresses.

Okay, spoilery stuff in case you care:



Okay, if the book was a bunch of baloney, the movie was spam. Just total hogwash. (and I am SCARED of the person that sees that movie and is actually surprised by the "Elizabeth becomes Queen" note at the end). I'm not a student of British history but I know most of that was bull. As toothlesshag pointed out in here reaction to the movie, Henry would NEVER have raped Anne. No way. He was a god fearing man and rape is a no-no. Even in the Tudors series, he asks politely first before jumping a few girls.

The movie was without focus. They needed to pick a theme. The screenwriter thought they were doing some weird feminist work, turning Mother Boleyn (Kristen Scott Thomas, ALSO wasted on this production) into a Greek Chorus, spouting warnings and such that the audience understands but no one else seems to. Daddy Boleyn was a little bitch to the Howards. Henry came off as a child, as usual. Catherine...oh in the book she is so tragic, but instead they just kind of have her around (that actress was great too). In the movie it isn't even clear where she went. its as though Anne just willed her in the cornfield.

The writer thought they were being clever, showing Catherine, Mary, and Anne all in their birthing beds getting the bad news about one thing or the other. But, it wasn't clever because it didn't MEAN anything.

Also, this movie had the opportunity to be very sexy and sensual. I mean, clearly they did not feel obligated to stick with history, why not go all the way and give us a bit more romance and seduction. It was like when I suffered through Twilight thinking "Well, at least I'll get to read a steamy sex scene at some point, it is clearly headed that way" and then nothing. That's how this movie was. You sit there thinking "well, at least the conquest of Henry will be all sexy-like being that it is Scarlet and Natalie and Eric Bana. But no. Nothing. Zip. Nada.



I just can't get over all the missed opportunities. A film that could have had a great mix of sex, politics, history, intrigue - ala Cate Blanchet's Elizabeth - was instead reduced to a movie about two women fighting over one big stupid man who could care less. The novel might have played it fast and loose with history, but at least it was INTERESTING. OBG was like

Comments

[impalalove]

Okay, that's interesting to know. Looks like I'm not watching it, then, because I love history, so I think I'll stick with that. Thanks for telling us. ;)

[dstntp1lgr1m.livejournal.com]

I was somewhat curious about this movie too, but now I think I'll wait for the DVD release.

I did watch the first season of The Tudors and thought the person playing Henry VIII was pretty good, but when I saw trailers for this movie around the same time I was watching that show I decided not to leap onto what could possibly become a bandwagon (such as when Titanic came out then suddenly high school girls acted like they'd always had an interest in the actual historical event when really they were just getting mroe tragic information to over-romaticize a mediocre movie (my opinion, purely)).

Haven't kept up with the Tudors since then, so for now I'll just listen to Tori Amos lyric references.

"Ran into the henchman that severed Anne Boleyn, he did it right quickly, a merciful man. She said one plus one is two, but Henry said that it was three. So it was. HEre I am."
-Talula

:) -you knew I would-

[imadra-blue.livejournal.com]

I kinda like the objects beginning each scene, I dunno. But I'm a sucker for things like that, because I think they add something to story, blah blah blah Humanities geek.

I'm sort of glad I didn't read the book--I'd probably have liked the movie less. But see, I don't think movies are obligated to be so close to their sources, because what makes a book work does not make a movie work, etc. I agree the film lacked focus, beyond that of family loyalty, which was pretty week. And Anne definitely needed more oomph, and if Scarlett wasn't so damn awesome, Mary probably would have been boring. And Hanry was...I hate Henry anyways, but this Henry was particularly despicable. I sort of liked the lighting, because it gave it a sort of classic feel, and it worked for the understatement.

But despite the film's flaws, I still enjoyed it. It's not a classic, and far from perfect, but still enjoyable. But yeah, unless you're a dorky historical drama fan like me (and liking historical dramas means you accept they never follow history) or a crazy Natalie and/or Scarlett fan, it's definitely more a DVD watching thing.

I can't speak about missed opportunities, since I don't know all that much about the Boleyns. But I sensed the movie definitely needed more substance. But I did like what they had was understated. I would not want more sex, but I get tired of films dripping with irritating and pointless sex scenes.

But anyways, I'm rambling, but I enjoyed reading your review. :)