entries friends calendar user info Cleoland Previous Previous Next Next
Occupation: Girl - The Other Boleyn Girl
Please close the door and switch on the fun without fail.
cleolinda
[info]cleolinda
Add to Memories
Share this!
The Other Boleyn Girl
Oh my God, that was horrible. You know what? It doesn't even bother me that the movie wasn't like history, because movies so rarely are, and the book wasn't either. And it doesn't bother me that the movie wasn't like the book, because--well, movies so rarely are, and the book wasn't like history anyway, and also, I'm usually the first one up at bat to defend movie adaptations, particularly the Harry Potter movies. You know why it was horrible? Because it didn't make any damn sense. We're never even told that Mary's husband died, so when William Stafford is all like, "Come live with me, and be my love!," everyone in the audience was like, "Wait, where's her husband?" And worse yet? Mary's like, "Wait, who the hell are you?" Because we saw Stafford ("Oh, hello, Stafford") all of once or twice previous to that. Let me recount the entirety of his dialogue before he proposes to her (paraphrased):

"I've heard that court... changes people."

"I'm leaving--court is... different now."

And you know, there were changes that made sense that didn't even bother me. It didn't even bother me, for example, that Lady Boleyn is now a sympathetic proto-feminist, because I understand that they wanted someone to voice modern concerns like, "How can we sell our daughters off like cattle?" We're not privy to Mary's internal dialogue anymore, so I understand that we need someone to voice that, as disappointed as I was that we weren't going to see Kristin Scott Thomas play a fantastic ice bitch; she plays the hell out of Maternal Indignation!Lady Boleyn anyway. I don't really see the point in rearranging the story so that Anne goes after Henry first and then he falls for Mary and blah blah blah, but I don't think the idea was bad per se. I think it was executed badly, but it could have worked. And I knew things were going to get cut--the movie's not even a full two hours, for God's sake. However, here's the kind of entire subplots the movie doesn't have:

>> Mary being Katherine's favorite lady-in-waiting
>> Mary learning to love farming at Hever
>> George being gay
>> George being really inappropriately affectionate with his sisters
>> George actually sleeping with Anne (which, frankly, I was glad of), although he nearly does
>> Jane Parker being a bitchy, hot-blooded sneak (as it is, she's just kind of emo in all of two minutes of screentime that George won't sleep with her)
>> Mary and her husband reconciling
>> Mary's husband dying, or there being any plague at all
>> Mary's daughter Catherine, who now doesn't even exist
>> Mary and William's courtship
>> The court going to Calais
>> Mary escaping court but having to go back because Anne takes Catherine (who doesn't exist now) to the Tower with her
>> Henry and Anne having a hot, volatile, fight-and-make-up relationship

And you know what? That last part bothered me the worst, because you know how Henry and Anne actually end up sleeping together in the movie? I'm going to make you swipe to see this part, because I don't want to upset people who get triggered by things, but: >>HE RAPES HER? WHAT? WHAT? RAPE? WHAT? ELIZABETH IS THE PRODUCT OF A RAPE? HE RAPES HER? ARE YOU SHITTING ME? SERIOUSLY?<< It wasn't necessary, it wasn't historical, it wasn't even in the book, which has a lot of fictionalized unpleasantness unto itself, it's a PG-13 movie, the scene itself is double-plus unpleasant and actually WAY less discreet than the soft-focus sex scenes, and--SERIOUSLY? I cannot get over this. SERIOUSLY. Even Alison Weir wrote in one of her books, and I am quoting this verbatim from memory, I recall it so vividly, >>"Henry was too much of a gentleman to resort to rape," which was precisely how Anne kept him dancing on a string for six years.<< GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Here's why I'm pissed off, really: there is absolutely no reason this movie had to be associated with the book at all. None of the melodramatic goodness of the book is in it--half the drama of the book is that Mary's loyalties are pulled between (among?) Anne, Henry and Katherine, as well as her family and her two husbands. Movie!Mary doesn't have any growth or awesomeness at all, because she never does anything but come and go when she's told. The only reason she even flees court during Anne's downfall is because Anne tries to convince George to sleep with her (Anne) in front of her (Mary), and Mary is either so disgusted or so (correctly) terrified that shit is about to go down that she rides away in the middle of the night. (And then George and Anne can't go through with it--which, again: thank God. Lesson learned for future movies: Showing consensual incest: baaaaad. >>Rape: A-OK!<<) She spends all of three seconds at Hever Rochford, and then comes back because she wants to beg Henry to spare Anne's life. Well, okay, since she doesn't have Catherine's welfare as a driving motive anymore; fine. And the bit at the end with Anne's execution and Henry's letter to Mary (I'm being vague on purpose here), okay, that was actually pretty well-played. But pretty much everything awesome about the book, every reason anyone loves that silly, historically inaccurate melodrama in the first place, is gone. And they don't even do a very good job of pacing what's left--it always feels like we're hearing about things that happened offscreen. Like, we didn't have enough time to show the interesting parts in the Great Divorce storyline, so we'll just spend an hour cutting back and forth between Henry screaming at people and bitching at Anne. It was two hours of skipping the good parts, and you can quote me on that.

Note: My mother knows nothing about Tudor history except what I've told her. She liked the movie and was surprised that I didn't. "Okay, except for a couple of gaps," she said, when I pointed out that Mary suddenly may or may not have a husband and That Stafford Guy (who isn't even cute) comes out of nowhere. "WHAT ABOUT THE--" "Oh. Yeah. Also that part. That part was... not so good."

That said: Natalie Portman was pretty good. My mother apparently didn't even know who was in the movie, because she totally squee'd when Portman's name showed up onscreen. "I've loved her ever since Closer !" And Eric Bana is better than you'd expect. Scarlett Johansson isn't good, per se, but she's perfectly cast in terms of looks, so I give her a pass. The costumes were awesome, obviously, but I don't think the movie's good enough to push them to Best Costume 2008, although we'll have to wait and see--I think The Duchess will put up a fight, if nothing else does.

Okay. Whew. Now that I've got that out of my system, there's pretty much only one way to recoup two hours watching that clusterfuck. I don't know how long it'll take me, but you'll be the first to know when I'm done.


Site Meter

Tags: , , , , , ,
Current Mood: CLEOSMASH

Comments
Page 1 of 3
[1] [2] [3]
crickwooder From: [info]crickwooder Date: March 2nd, 2008 10:44 pm (UTC) (Link)
DUDE. I just posted abut this very thing. I am Not Happy.
cleolinda From: [info]cleolinda Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:02 pm (UTC) (Link)
I keep thinking I'm going to stop being angry any moment now, and it keeps not happening.
(no subject) - [info]crickwooder Expand
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda Expand
(no subject) - [info]crickwooder Expand
(no subject) - [info]delle Expand
cpl593h From: [info]cpl593h Date: March 2nd, 2008 10:45 pm (UTC) (Link)
To be quite honest, I think all historical inaccuracies aside, Philippa Gregory writes some of the most sexist tripe I've ever read.
cleolinda From: [info]cleolinda Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:01 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well, it's weird--she's really sympathetic to Katherine and writes her as a really interesting character (okay, The Constant Princess is kind of atrocious, but aside from that), and I like Hannah Green in The Queen's Fool, but her Elizabeth is just pure character assassination. I seriously cannot understand why she has such a hate on for Elizabeth.
(no subject) - [info]cpl593h Expand
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda Expand
(no subject) - [info]cpl593h Expand
spectralbovine From: [info]spectralbovine Date: March 2nd, 2008 10:50 pm (UTC) (Link)
Wow! A friend of mine recently posted about how bad this movie was too (and he doesn't post that often, so he went out of his way to warn us away). I was surprised.
cleolinda From: [info]cleolinda Date: March 2nd, 2008 10:59 pm (UTC) (Link)
Seriously, I would have said, "Eh, Netflix it" until That Scene came along. Now I'm just angry. And the rest of it isn't even lazy screenwriting, because you have to WORK to change that much of the story. It makes me wonder why they even bothered adapting it--it seems like open disdain for the book to just not even use it, except for the line "My golden sister, my milk and honey sister," which may be the ONLY ACTUAL LINE that made it into the movie.
(no subject) - [info]spectralbovine Expand
rufinia From: [info]rufinia Date: March 2nd, 2008 10:50 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yes, yes, OMG yes.


last_archangel From: [info]last_archangel Date: March 2nd, 2008 10:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh, it was just awful. I thought even the costumes were poorly-done; did you see all the copies and clones everywhere, like Katherine's ladies-in-waiting, all wearing the Exact Same Dress except for accent colors? Also, absolutely no effort was put into making it a good film. It was poor enough as an adaptation, but it also was the laziest piece of movie-making I've seen in a while. If possible, it was worse than the ridiculous reality-show like version that the BBC spent £30 on a few years back. Possibly the worst screenplay I've seen in recent years. The editing was poor, the acting (even on the part of actors we know are good) was abysmal. It was just messy and substandard all around.
cleolinda From: [info]cleolinda Date: March 2nd, 2008 10:52 pm (UTC) (Link)
Didn't Peter Morgan write The Queen? What the shit happened?
(no subject) - [info]last_archangel Expand
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda Expand
(no subject) - [info]txvoodoo Expand
(no subject) - [info]viorica8957 Expand
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda Expand
(no subject) - [info]elisa0984 Expand
(no subject) - [info]last_archangel Expand
msilverstar From: [info]msilverstar Date: March 2nd, 2008 10:52 pm (UTC) (Link)
It's like the worst of all possibilities, huh? Not history, not the book, not even a good movie, just a muddled mess? Thanks for the warning, not that I'm going out for a while anyway, but definitely not to see this one!
cleolinda From: [info]cleolinda Date: March 2nd, 2008 10:55 pm (UTC) (Link)
Exactly. I can deal with it not being like history, or not being like the book, or even not being like EITHER, but I can't deal with it being bad on top of that, and The Bad Scene is like an extra, spiteful cherry on top of the sundae of suck. I seriously cannot get over them just making up something that unpleasant when it wasn't even necessary to the story in any way at all. I mean, there's a similar scene in Rob Roy, for example, but it has its place, you know? It serves SOME damn purpose.

Edited at 2008-03-02 10:56 pm (UTC)
(no subject) - [info]crickwooder Expand
(no subject) - [info]everstar3 Expand
(no subject) - [info]crickwooder Expand
(no subject) - [info]everstar3 Expand
lilgoala From: [info]lilgoala Date: March 2nd, 2008 10:57 pm (UTC) (Link)
I hadn't planned on watching it in theaters, but I thought I might catch it on DVD, so thanks for saving me from renting it. Can't wait for the m15m treatment. :)
last_archangel From: [info]last_archangel Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:04 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh my GOD, yes. Cleolinda, please tell me you'll do this.
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda Expand
(no subject) - [info]last_archangel Expand
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda Expand
angevin2 From: [info]angevin2 Date: March 2nd, 2008 10:59 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh man, I hated this movie too. Except for Mark Rylance, since I always love Mark Rylance when he isn't talking about Shakespearean authorship. But how on earth did they manage to make Tudor history so BORING?

Also:

Movie!Mary doesn't have any growth or awesomeness at all

...or more than one facial expression. (Unless you count "screaming during childbirth," which brings her up to two.)
claidissa From: [info]claidissa Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:02 pm (UTC) (Link)
Wow, thank you for posting this. I didn't really know anything about the book, but it looked interesting, and was looking to see if it was any good. Now I'm definitely not going to see it.
flamingtoilet From: [info]flamingtoilet Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
Iconlove! Dalek + stairs = wackiness!
tifaria From: [info]tifaria Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:04 pm (UTC) (Link)
Heh. I don't think I've read a positive review of this yet. I was really eager to see if your opinion would differ or not. I guess I'll be waiting for a rental on this one.. or maybe I'll check out the book in the meantime.
nohara_megami From: [info]nohara_megami Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:12 pm (UTC) (Link)
Thank you for the warning, because I have been trying to decide if I should read the book, then see the movie, but after this I think I will just go grab the book.
thansunshine From: [info]thansunshine Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:15 pm (UTC) (Link)
I think one of my my biggest problems with the movie was the whole rape thing. It just didn't fit.

Also, yeah, William Carey just kind of disappeared? I don't think anyone in my theatre realised it except for me, but when I was talking to my mom afterward, she was like, "OHHHH". And there was no love story with Stafford and Mary, it was just hgska so short.

The entire movie was short, really. ):

And the entire way the incest storyline was portrayed just really made me angry. I know incest is wrong and all, but I totally loved it in the book, just because you knew they had done it because they loved each other, and not because Anne just wanted a baby.

*sigh*

It was pretty to look at, at least.

Edited at 2008-03-02 11:15 pm (UTC)
angevin2 From: [info]angevin2 Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:40 pm (UTC) (Link)
The entire movie was short, really. ):

Which is ironic because it felt really, really, really long.
(no subject) - [info]thansunshine Expand
(no subject) - [info]angevin2 Expand
From: [info]sweet_pessimism Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:17 pm (UTC) (Link)
It would completely rock out loud if you m15m'd this. That is what you're doing, right? Please say that's what you're doing!
cleolinda From: [info]cleolinda Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:19 pm (UTC) (Link)
That's what I'm saying. Unless I DIE OF FURY first.
(no subject) - [info]particle_person Expand
(no subject) - [info]sweet_pessimism Expand
(no subject) - [info]particle_person Expand
(no subject) - [info]sweet_pessimism Expand
(no subject) - [info]txvoodoo Expand
last_archangel From: [info]last_archangel Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:19 pm (UTC) (Link)
cmdr_zoom From: [info]cmdr_zoom Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
I dunno, Lucas didn't seem to mind that Christensen had a similar "range"...

I'll shut up now
(no subject) - [info]kosher_jenny Expand
undying_rose17 From: [info]undying_rose17 Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:22 pm (UTC) (Link)
I told my folks it was like trying to squeeze all three LOTR books into one movie...too much of what was important in the book didn't make it into the movie, and the movie suffered a lot for it. I mean...I think I would've been more okay with it if it'd just been a random movie about the Boleyn sisters and not had The Other Boleyn Girl slapped on it, but this was just...ugh.

It could've been infinitely better if they'd just stuck to telling the story completely from Mary's POV instead of trying to play Anne as sympathetic at the same time. That's what really made the book so powerful, was that Anne really wasn't a sympathetic character and you sort of cheered at the end when Mary was able to marry for love and not be dragged down by her sister's ambition.
awanderingbard From: [info]awanderingbard Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
Dude! Exactly. I was able to enjoy it as I am very forgiving to movies, but as a comparison to the book, it was ridiculous!

My mum is currently reading the book (I picked it up a few weeks ago at the grocery store because it was cheap and I've always wanted to read it), so she wasn't as offended as I was, but she wasn't confused either. She followed it fine (although she is a HUGE Tudor history buff and she pointed out that if she didn't know what was going on, she totally wouldn't have known what was going on).

I was trying to explain to her how William Stafford was not well cast (not in terms of acting ability, he did fine with what he had) because William is the rugged country bumpkin who is all not what any courtier is. There's no way movie!William could throw a girl up into her saddle. Or that you'd be so in love with him that all you'd want to do is have sex with him all day and night long (literally).

I was kind of like 'Thank God' about the incest thing, though. I was fine if it was there, but I was like 'please fade to black, please fade to black' because I was afraid they were going to show it and DO NOT WANT. I think it's sad George didn't have more to do because Jim Sturgess did a good job with that jovial, 'hail fellow well met' personality George has.

My mum said that she knew the story and what she was really looking forward to were the costumes and the lying in chambers and the progress from place to place and such. That wasn't disappointing. I really loved how Anne and Mary were basically in the same dress in different colours constantly. Sort of carbon copies of each other and the sort of 'well, this looks fine on her, just make another one for the other one' attitude.

I thought Natalie Portman did a wonderful job. She had that twinge to her dialogue where even when she wasn't crazy, there was that hint that she was a bit manic. I don't know if I'm describing it right. She was how I pictured Anne, basically. ScarJo did fine, but her character was not given much of an arc to work with.

Oh, and that thing that is in the non-visible text? WORD.

lotusbiosm From: [info]lotusbiosm Date: March 3rd, 2008 12:53 am (UTC) (Link)
Except I felt like the whole "lying-in" thing was not properly explained. It's such a bizarre custom and so alien to how we see pregnancy now that I felt like it needed even just one line of expository dialogue. Yes, the blood sort of makes it clear that it's bedrest, but it's not bedrest like we know it.
(no subject) - [info]awanderingbard Expand
(no subject) - [info]lotusbiosm Expand
haleiwatown From: [info]haleiwatown Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:28 pm (UTC) (Link)
The movie was good. I just saw it with my daughter yesterday. It wasn't life-altering, but it was good.

Have I read the book? No. I never judge a movie by its book, or vice versa. The movie for movie's sake was good.
rufinia From: [info]rufinia Date: March 3rd, 2008 12:35 am (UTC) (Link)
I saw it last night, and yes, I've read the book multiple times.

I came out thinking "well, erm.... I'll put that in the "not bad" catagory."

After sleeping on it, I am thinking, hm, no, if it had been a movie about the Boleyn sisters, it would be not bad, even though they dropped William Carey and gave Jane Parker two lines and a furrowed brow, and if it hadn't been for the gestation and birth of two babies I'd think maybe all of this took place within the span of a month because there was no indication of when it was, ever, and the whole thing with the director having people cross inbetween the camera and the actors in the active scene was annoying at best and a piss-poor attempt to make this look like something we were overhearing and if there's a cinematography nod in this I'll kill someone at worst-

No, I'm sorry. Upon further reflection, as a movie, it just was not good.

As an adaptation of a novel that had a solid plot line, it was awful.
(no subject) - [info]haleiwatown Expand
redpistolet From: [info]redpistolet Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:33 pm (UTC) (Link)
Amen. :D My poor Anne.
everstar3 From: [info]everstar3 Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:39 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm stunned that they executed (no pun intended, Anne) this so poorly given that the Tudor dynasty is a huge melodrama BEFORE you start fictionalizing it. You would think that they'd keep in mind the whole point, which is to roll around in the juicy tug-of-war between Anne, Henry, and Mary.

As to the [spoiler], WHAT. It blows such a huge hole in Henry's character and Anne's manipulations! Part of the whole reason for him trying to separate from poor Katherine of Aragon is that he'd never [spoiler]!

Argh.
cleolinda From: [info]cleolinda Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:43 pm (UTC) (Link)
I KNOW! It's vile AND it makes no sense!
(no subject) - [info]everstar3 Expand
emerybored From: [info]emerybored Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:55 pm (UTC) (Link)

Wow

Well, Cleo, I value your opinion on movies highly. Ever since pointing out the "Dread Pirate Roberts Corps de Ballet" in your Phantom in 15 Minutes that I totally missed on theater viewing.. I definitely trust you on this one. While I am a fan of Phillipa Gregory as far as pop historical fic, it is racy and complete bubble gum. The Other Boleyn Girl is still her best one, imo. I have been debating about seeing the movie, and/or digging out my copy of the book. It seems I will be only doing the "or."

Thanks for saving me the $8.50. I'll need it for a gallon of gas for my car.
emerybored From: [info]emerybored Date: March 3rd, 2008 12:00 am (UTC) (Link)

Um

So: I just realized that my punctuation up there made my statement read strangely.

That was supposed to be: "Well, Cleo, I have valued your opinion on movies highly ever since you pointed out the "Dread Pirate Roberts Corps de Ballet" in your Phantom in 15 Minutes, which I totally missed upon viewing it in the theater."

Or something like that.
wumbawoman From: [info]wumbawoman Date: March 2nd, 2008 11:57 pm (UTC) (Link)
See, I want to watch it only so I can enjoy the m15m that much more!
plazmah From: [info]plazmah Date: March 3rd, 2008 12:13 am (UTC) (Link)
Wow, thank you for this. The book was my constant companion when I was travelling through India last summer and I did want to see the movie... but now I know better.
sneaky_minx From: [info]sneaky_minx Date: March 3rd, 2008 12:18 am (UTC) (Link)
*sends healing vibes to your brain* You poor, poor thing! *hugs*
From: [info]pygmymetal Date: March 3rd, 2008 12:24 am (UTC) (Link)
Comcast Cable has season 1 of Showtimes 'The Tudors' on their On Demand and it's free. I think it stops on the 5th so hurry and watch them all. Prettier costumes. :)
lotusbiosm From: [info]lotusbiosm Date: March 3rd, 2008 12:49 am (UTC) (Link)
I think Eric Bana looks more like Henry VIII, but JRM does a much better job at conveying Henry's intensity and the myriad of emotions he was experiencing.
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda Expand
(no subject) - [info]everstar3 Expand
lotusbiosm From: [info]lotusbiosm Date: March 3rd, 2008 12:48 am (UTC) (Link)
The pacing was terrible. The way they leapt over major plot points like they were thinking "well, they've all watched The Tudors on Showtime, we can skip the history" made me boggle. The elimination of Catherine as a character made me sad. The complete lack of development of any single relationship at all was just ludicrous. And you never even got to see Scarlett's boobs!
lotusbiosm From: [info]lotusbiosm Date: March 4th, 2008 12:12 am (UTC) (Link)
I also will say that it the spoiler that upset you so barely registered with me, because the movie went so quickly. But you're absolutely right.
131 comments or Leave a comment
Page 1 of 3
[1] [2] [3]
profile
Cleolinda Jones
User: [info]cleolinda
Name: Cleolinda Jones
Website: Cleoland
calendar
Back July 2010
123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
links
page summary
tags