curlergrrl
05-18-2008, 01:34 PM
I haven't seen this movie yet, but I have seen much of The Tudors that you refer to in comparison, and I have to make a few comments about that. You're implying that The Tudors is preferable over The Other Boleyn Girl for two reasons - that it is more interesting because it contains more sex and violence; and that it is somehow more accurate because you believe Henry's relationship with these two women was all about lust. I don't know where you got these ideas, maybe straight from The Tudors itself. Clearly the purpose of Showtime's producers and directors in peppering this show with lots of imaginative if soft-focus sex and some medieval-fantasy violence (also soft-focus) is to capture people like you as their audience. However, the abundance of historical inaccuracies in this production are laughable, particularly when compared with the careful historical research clearly done by Philippa Gregory in preparation for writing her novels. As just one example, The Tudors portrayed the birth of Henry Fitzroy, Henry VIII's illegitimate son by Elizabeth Blount, when Henry appeared to be perhaps 25 or so (he was actually 27, I think). However, it also portrayed his death at the age of 3, when in fact he lived to be 17, was the first Duke of Richmond and Somerset, and was married when he died apparently of tuberculosis. Look it up. Also, The Tudors portrays Henry marrying Anne at perhaps the age of 30 or at most his mid-thirties. Again the facts are that he first became involved with her in 1525 when he was 34 or so, and they were not actually married until 1532. There's no way you can say that JRM's Henry looks 41-or-2 at the time he marries Anne Boleyn in the series.
In addition, your comments about his relationships with these women being all about lust are facile and naive. IMO, the script and Jonathan Rhys Myers' portrayal of Henry makes him look more like a self-involved, posturing thug than the politically astute King of England he actually was. Henry VIII was inarguably sexually indiscriminate, but his relationship with Anne Boleyn, even from his point of view, wasn't just about sex. In fact, it was most certainly tied to his deep, almost obsessive desire to have a legitimate son to inherit his crown. That's lust of a different sort, I suppose, if you want to characterize it that way. He knew that without that, anything he accomplished would die with him and he was egotistic enough to be determined that wouldn't happen. It's pretty evident when reading historical facts about both Henry and Anne that their lust was more for power than for sex.
Personally, I will take historical accuracy over explotative sex and violence every time, so your negative comments actually convinced me to make an effort to see this movie despite your C+ grade.
In addition, your comments about his relationships with these women being all about lust are facile and naive. IMO, the script and Jonathan Rhys Myers' portrayal of Henry makes him look more like a self-involved, posturing thug than the politically astute King of England he actually was. Henry VIII was inarguably sexually indiscriminate, but his relationship with Anne Boleyn, even from his point of view, wasn't just about sex. In fact, it was most certainly tied to his deep, almost obsessive desire to have a legitimate son to inherit his crown. That's lust of a different sort, I suppose, if you want to characterize it that way. He knew that without that, anything he accomplished would die with him and he was egotistic enough to be determined that wouldn't happen. It's pretty evident when reading historical facts about both Henry and Anne that their lust was more for power than for sex.
Personally, I will take historical accuracy over explotative sex and violence every time, so your negative comments actually convinced me to make an effort to see this movie despite your C+ grade.