The late great George Macdonald Fraser sprang to the aid of historical movies
in a book called The Hollywood History of the World. “A picture of the ages
more vivid and memorable than anything in Tacitus or Gibbon or Macaulay,” he
said, claiming that inaccuracies simply didn't matter. We historians might
beg to differ (quickly taking the opportunity to ally myself with the Three
Wise Men) - but then we would, wouldn't we?
It remains an interesting question for historians, teachers and all lovers of
history whether the creator of Flashman had a point: do the many
inaccuracies, not to say travesties, in historical movies matter compared
with the general illumination and insight they may bring? The latest
offering The Other Boleyn Girl makes a perfect case in point for us to
consider the question.
The Other Boleyn Girl is set in Tudor times - and they are times we are
getting to know pretty well in film terms these days, what with the
successful BBC TV series The Tudors last autumn, as well as Elizabeth: The
Golden Age. The story of the new film is taken from Philippa Gregory's
bestselling novel of the same title. It is adapted for the screen by Peter
Morgan, celebrated for writing the screenplay about a very different queen,
Elizabeth II as portrayed by Helen Mirren.
“The other Boleyn girl” is Mary, Anne's lesser-known sister who also had an
affair with Henry VIII. Basically the film centres on the rivalry between
the two sisters, their alternating bouts of love, jealousy, betrayal and
support, ending in a dénouement which has Mary trying in vain to save Anne
from the scaffold, despite the fact that the predatory Anne took Henry away
from her. In case you didn't notice that the girls are sisters, they
repeatedly remind us of the fact throughout the movie, with moments of
philosophy such as: “because she's my sister ... she's one half of me”.
The first thing to be said is that the film is extremely enjoyable, partly
because of stellar performances by Natalie Portman as Anne and Scarlett
Johansson as Mary, one a sultry dark beauty and the other fairytale blonde.
In fact there is a fairytale element to the whole story; it's Rose Red and
Snow White for adults, with Eric Bana as a fairly charming Prince,
frequently stripping off. (Having become a connoisseur of Henry VIII's
chest, I rather preferred that of The Tudors' Jonathan Rhys Meyer.) There's
a further dazzling performance by Kristin Scott Thomas as the girls' mother
in which she allows herself - surely - to be artificially aged and looks
more beautiful than ever.
Inaccurate? Obviously you can't expect a film taken from an historical novel
to be accurate since historical novelists, by definition, are using their
imagination. There are certainly many liberties taken to suit the story:
Anne's early encounter with Henry has no basis in fact. In reality Mary
Boleyn also went to France and attended the Queen there, rather than
skulking winsomely in the country, and Anne herself was certainly not
banished.
As to Mary's child during her Carey marriage, who is featured as the
unquestioned son of Henry, the dates don't fit historically. Even more to
the point, the Carey boy was born at a time when Henry was so desperate for
a male heir that he ennobled another bastard by Bessie Blount, Henry
Fitzroy, and made him a Duke (of Richmond, a quasi- royal title in those
days). Unfortunately Fitzroy died, but there is evidence that in his
lifetime the King was contemplating making use of him as a spare male heir
in the absence of a legitimate one. No such steps were taken in the
direction of the Carey boy; the prominence he gained as Lord Hunsdon in the
reign of Elizabeth began with the fact that he was not so much her
half-brother as her first cousin; Elizabeth was ever supportive of her
Boleyn relations.
My personal experience of historical films has been a happy one. In 2006 I was
lucky enough to have my biography of Marie Antoinette made into a film of
the same name, written and directed by Sofia Coppola. I say lucky because
everything went well from the beginning, starting with the moment when I
told her with sincerity: “I have given my vision in my book, and anyone who
wants to know what I think can read it. Now you make your movie, give your
vision and, as it were, don't mind me.”I told myself from the start that a
book and a movie were two quite different things and as a result I had no
problem of emotional possessiveness throughout our five-year association.
I certainly loved the movie, including Coppola's daring use of rock music to
delineate the 18th-century party girl she took the French queen to be.
People who expected - or hoped - that I would shudder were disappointed.
Inaccuracies? As such there were remarkably few in the story. I remember
having a few pangs at the apparently disrespectful way courtiers treated the
Queen; Rose Byrne as the Princesse de Lamballe comes to mind, bustling into
the royal box at the opera without so much as a curtsey, merely an
enthusiastic cry of “Cheree!” But if the film had followed the correct
elaborate protocols of Versailles it would have lasted six hours or more.
I had the same problem with the recent Elizabeth: The Golden Age, in which
Clive Owen as Sir Walter Raleigh drove me mad by strutting about in front of
Cate Blanchett's queen like Errol Flynn in a white ruffled shirt open to the
navel. “Get that man a doublet,” I hissed.
Coppola decided early on to end the story before Marie Antoinette was
executed, with her enforced departure from Versailles and the vanishing of
the old way of life. So no tragic execution scene. “We know all that,” she
told me, leaving me to reflect basely: “And if we don't, we can always go
and buy my book.”
Vivid and memorable, in Macdonald Fraser's phrase? Certainly the exquisite
Oscar-winning costumes and settings conveyed more richly than my hopefully
fine descriptions ever could the world of Marie Antoinette. And I find that
in my mind's eye Kirsten Dunst's wistful face has begun to take over from
the portraits as the image of the ill-fated Queen: which is fine because
there is a remarkable similarity of type even if the movie star, lacking the
Habsburg lip, is much more beautiful - fortunately for us viewers.
Coppola's strong sense of what she did and did not want to do - this is the
“getting of wisdom by a young girl”, not a biopic - saved the film from the
tedium of some earlier historical movies: Hal Wallis's Mary Queen of Scots
(1971) comes to mind. Glenda Jackson harrumphed as Queen Elizabeth and
Vanessa Redgrave lamented as Mary in thoroughly predictable ways.
Furthermore the film featured the notorious scene-that-never-was in which
the two queens met, so it couldn't even claim to be an accurate picture.
This scene was first invented by Schiller in his play about Mary, and later
used by Donizetti in his opera Maria Stuarda. It makes a wonderful contest
on the stage with Mary finally losing her cool in front of the woman who can
save her and denouncing her as the daughter of the “impure Anne Boleyn”: she
calls Elizabeth “vil bastarda” (it sounds even better in Italian). But such
a major rewriting of history can't really be justified in a second-rate
historical movie, even if Schiller the genius is permitted anything.
Do any of its historical inaccuracies undermine The Other Boleyn Girl? I think
not, in what is a rattling good romantic movie. Does The Other Boleyn Girl
on the other hand give us something “vivid and memorable”, further to
anything historians can do? I think not again. For there is one huge
dimension missing from it. I mean a sense of religion, religious turbulence,
spiritual conviction and all the immense changes brought about in England by
the Reformation. Anne Boleyn was in fact an early “Protestant” to use a
modern word, a patron of Lutheran preachers who introduced Henry to certain
reformed religious texts. Her intelligence and strong character not only
captured Henry but also enabled her to hang on to him by presenting herself
as a powerful queenly figure, no longer a mere mistress.
Religion in The Other Boleyn Girl was presumably felt to be a killjoy subject
compared to sex (lots and lots of it), realistic scenes of childbirth (maybe
one too many - we have got the picture the first time in every sense of the
word) and the political use of sex by the nobles surrounding the King.
Whether or not Sir Thomas Boleyn and the Duke of Norfolk really instructed
the girls explicitly how to act the whore in the cause of family
advancement, the intention to use them politically was certainly there. Only
the language is false to history. Furthermore, where language is concerned,
there should surely be a lot of leeway given to the screenwriter. We don't
want cod period language, even if there are always a few happily risible
moments in historical movies. Genevieve Bujold as a previous Boleyn girl in
Anne of the Thousand Days (1969) was responsible for one of my favourites:
“Oh Henry,” she cries, “you great big royal booby!”
Here, Richard Burton as a sensational Henry - the part he was born to play -
lingers in the mind during the formal court dance in which he captures the
reluctant Anne as his partner (she's currently declining his sexual
attentions): “Mistress,” purrs the alpha male, “you will dance to my tune.”
Fanny Ardent as Mary of Guise seducing John Knox with her thick French accent
in the first Elizabeth film (1998), is another must for students of the
genre. All this is not only fun but infinitely preferable to the laboured
information-giving of Nicholas and Alexandra (1971) - alas, another dull
movie on an extraordinary subject. I remember a scrap of dialogue that went:
“Good morning, Stalin, I'm called Lenin and this is Kerenzsky.” Or something
like that.
Peter Morgan makes no such mistake. He has Anne Boleyn respond to a banal
question by the King about how she intends to ride her horse, with: “As
usual, your Grace, with my thighs.” And why not?
However, the lack of any big idea in The Other Boleyn Girl, other than the
fact that sisters are, well, sisters means that it never rises to the
heights of the Great Historical Movie such as my all-time favourite in the
genre, A Man for all Seasons (1966). This was Robert Bolt's play about Sir
Thomas More and the young Henry VIII transformed into a fabulous movie with
help from Paul Scofield and Robert Shaw. The painful dilemma of the
individual's conscience versus his loyalty to the state unrolls before us
with colour, drama and truth. You thrill to the movie, you agonise over the
message. Compared to this, The Other Boleyn Girl - that's entertainment.
I so truly agree.
Arun, Chicago, USA
I saw this film yesterday and thought it was interesting enough to comment on, was especially happy to see Kristen Scott Thomas on the screen and think most of the actors acquit themselves very well.
Beautiful production though I wish there were a little more plot complication; still, the lack of complication forced a level of focus on the primal battle for progeny, ascendency, power of royal blood over familial blood lines...
I think both Portman and Johansen will become even finer actors than they are, one day. It's so interesting to me watching talent grow up on the screen right before your eyes.
Elan Durham, Santa Monica, CA/US
I loved Anne of a thousand days, Richard Burton was prob the most convincing Henry V111's even his hint of welsh didnt deter me from thinking that he could be the reincarnation, I havnt personally seen the film'the other bolyen girl' but ive read the book. Well i say read it i half read it and to behonest i was just amazed that such rubbish about them could be written. It is surpose to entertain yet i was spitting. It shows Anne to be cold and heartless, well i surpose in them times you had to be hard but i doubt very much that she was heartless, She actually did love elizabeth and even insisted on breast feeding her much to the discust of everyone Anne seemed to be her own person pretty much as any clever woman would be. Refused to be put aside and i fear this eventually was her downfall where queens were meant to turn a blind eye she didnt. The book made her and Mary enermies i doubt very much that thier was any major rilvary as Henry was a ladies man with moremistres than them two.
kate berry, birmingham, uk,
I beg to differ on one point: NICHOLAS & ALEXANDRA. It was a stunning film by a masterful filmmaker, realised by a brilliant cast. Boring? They don't make 'em like they used to. More's the pity.
Jon Ted Wynne, Winnipeg, Canada
I'm sorry!
Two American women in the leads, playing alongside the Australian Eric( Chopper) Bana, as Henry V111?
Whoever casts these movies to-day?
'A Man for all Seasons' was a masterpiece, with a central performance, by Paul Scofield, never surpassed.
Just imagine, if, this film, was being made, to-day?
I dread to even guess, which actor, would be chosen to play
the role, of Sir Thomas More!
PRUDENCE EELY BOND MCGUIRE, LONDON, ENGLAND,UK.
The upper class are remarkeably ignorant of other socio-economic stations in life. I found the idea of Mairie Antoniette not saying "let them eat cake" to be revisionist rubbish. Edmund Burke is finally dying a well deserved death.
Let the Boylen girls squabble over which catholic ministers at court should meet the executioner, followed by a host of protestants getting theirs with Anne. Now that is a story I can believe in. Religious murder is timely subject, don't you think?
Titus, Spring, USA
I have read a lot of history and historical novels over the years, all of which in one way or another tend to view Mary Boleyn as a stupid failure by comparison with the spectacular Anne. The joy of Philippa Gregory's story is that it is so rare in pointing out the obvious fact that the sister who did not have her head cut off might in fact have made the more intelligent and certainly the happier choice.
Amanda, London,
I'd like to add comments in response to Birmingham, UK...
I love that both Mirren and Blanchett portrayed Elizabeth as showing so-called "feminine weaknesses" if showing one's human side can be said to be weak, even for a Queen (a debate raised over Clinton's tears as well). I also admire that the actresses were flexible enough in their thinking about Elizabeth to show private moments which surely must exist, in juxtaposition to Mirren's line... "I have the heart and belly of a man" (or something to that effect...)
A film can still be beautiful and exist as serious fare... Many complaints about Elizabeth: The Golden Age can be boiled down to a resistence toward the production design, the beauty of the costumes, etc., at least as I remember in the views of some American critics. Just because The Other Boleyn GIrl looks gorgeous does not mean its not going to deliver.
I also admire Natalie Portman; she has a great deal of courage and sense.
Elan Durham, Santa Monica, Ca/US
Whether or not an inaccuracy annoys me depends on the nature of the inaccuracy. There was nothing in Glaidator, for example, that horrified me (though the apparent restoration of the Republic at the end is a bit of a stretch). I also echo the loved for The Lion in Winter, a fantastic film.
There are some inaccuracies, however, that make my skin crawl. U571 is a movie I have not seen and do not intend to, because it portrays Americans stealing an Enigma machine - a feat accomplished by British members of the armed forces, whose relatives may still be alive to be hurt by this. I also ahd to turn off Morgan's Elizabeth, with Helen Mirren. The Virgin Queen, who refused to marry in order to preserve her royal power for herself, would not have run and cried on Dudley's shoulder every time she faced a challenge. I could not stomach such a weak Elizabeth - a portrayal I find sexist and almost offensive. This does not bode well for The Other Boleyn Girl...
Juliette, Birmingham, UK,
A Lion in Winter and A Man for All Seasons are some of my favorite films from the era when we were fortunate enough to see Katherine Hepburn, Peter O'Toole, Richard Burton, Genevieve Bujold, & Paul Scofield in their heroic modes.
A Lion in Winter is still one of my favorites. NOTHING is more satisfying than watching Hepburn and O'Toole battle it out. The scenes between those two theartrical titans are etched in my memory--especially Hepburn or O'Toole gleefully ringing out "I won! I won!"
Filmmakers seemed to take the historical mode more seriously, probably because filmmaking wasn't as populous in terms of genres, studio innovations, etc. Actually, an historical epic was something everyone flocked to see, if you can imagine such a thing.
I remember seeing Miss Hepburn on the Upper East Side in NYC carrying wood back to her apartment. That was an historical moment.
Elan Durham, Santa Monica, Ca/US
It's Fanny Ardant, not Fanny Ardent. The notion of Fanny Ardent is more worrying than any of the historical inaccuracies mentioned above.
Kirk Elder, Peebles, Peeblesshire
It seems that Antonia confuses accuracy or inaccuracy with historical understanding. By accuracy she is speaking of factual matters but not necessarily understanding and although she clearly knows the difference - it is in there somewhere, and most certainly it is in the history she herself writes - she never states anything other than the "fact" that what makes the difference in a film between "real history" and a "ripping yarn" is the accuracy of the fact.
We do not want to deliver history into the hands of scientists who will forensically follow the trail of facts to then turn them into covering laws. History is made for cinema, and some of our best historians are film directors simply because what we have in history is something that science leaves out when it studies man, namely his humanity.
As the philosopher R G Collingwood pointed out many years ago, historical understanding is about human action and the thoughts that made it possible. Re-enactment then is the way.
Seán McGrady, York, North Yorkshire
Having performed in the outdoor drama The Lost Colony, staged each summer on the coast of North Carolina, I have an interest both in the Tudor and Elizabethan periods. I so enjoyed Miss Bujold's performance as Anne Boleyn and I look forward to seeing what Miss Portman has done with the part.
A Man for All Seasons is a film to which I keep returning. The magnificent Paul Scofield (the scenes with Orson Welles are memorable) and the young John Hurt are highlights for me, as well as the beautiful musical score from Georges Delerue (who also scored Anne of the Thousand Days).
Alison Weir's Life of Elizabeth I is an excellent book.
Ken, Orangeburg, SC, USA
The trouble with Philippa Gregory's atrocious novel isn't that it contains inaccuracies, or even that it contains modern idioms. It is that all the characters think and act like people of the early 21st century, not the mid-16th. The example that Antonia Fraser raises- religion- is a case in point. 16th century people believed in God, and what they believed about him was a major motivation for their actions. This is something we find very hard to understand- we suspect that claims to religous motivation are a cover for something else. So in the novel, religion is a cover for politics, not a motivation in itself. Compare a real historical novelist like Patrick O'Brien. "The Other Boleyn Girl" is just 21st century soft porn in 16th century dress.
Stephen Walton, Whitchurch, UK
I envisage a cartoon of a film. The Six Wives of Henry VIII in 1972 starring Keith Michell I do not think can or ever will be bettered - and he had red hair (as well as in the shorter film version)! Surely Dame Dorothy Tutin gives the iconic performance of all time as Anne Boleyn?
Liz Adams, Staffordshire, England
Liz Adams, Staffordshire, UK
"A Man for All Seasons" Greatest Historical Novel? Methinks not. Much prefer "A Lion in Winter". O'Toole, Hepburn, Hopkins et al slowly tearing each other to little shreds as only family members can - fantastic!
Neil Johnson, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
1) Cod language. There are actors - Richard Burton, Richard Harris, Marlon Brando - who could say ANYTHING and have you believe it. Sadly, there were never enough of them to go around.
2) Surely the most realistic goal for any historical movie that's intended for a mass audience is to provide a background credible to most of the audience against which period events can be viewed through a contemporary prism? For me, Channel 4's recent "City of Vice" scored top marks in this department.
Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK
Lovely article, though I think you'll find that in Anne of the Thousand Days Genevieve Bujold (as Anne Boleyn) says "Henry - you great Royal fool".
Adrian Tudor, London, England
I guess one can try to see these historical inaccuracies from your point of view, but sometimes watching them can be so very maddening. It would really be nice if they could at least try to be true to history, I am sure that would be just as entertaining.
Barbara Fleisher, Monrovia, USAs
Ha! - Antonia Fraser is human after all. Fanny Ardent as Mary of Guise seduced Francis Walsingham in the first Elizabeth movie, not John Knox. Great essay though.
Uche Nwamara, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
The use of asynchronous language and loose facts in historical films always bothered me, but I am free at last - if Miss Antonia says its ok, then it must be.
Artie, Vero Beach, Florida
The biggest inaccuracy? Yet again Henry VIII is portrayed SANS red head. Why can't auburn-haired gents portray someone who is one of their ilk? I cry foul!
Geoff, Columbus, OH