Prompt- Worst movie you've ever seen (and how you would have made it better)
The worst movie I have ever seen is an adaptation of one of my favorite books. "The Other Boleyn Girl" (IMDB link) by Philippa Gregory is one of the books that got me interested in historical fiction, specifically about the Tudor era, and introduced me to one of my favorite authors. So, you can imagine my excitement when it was turned into a movie in 2008. It stars Scarlett Johansson as Mary Boleyn and Natalie Portman as her famous little sister, Anne.
I know that book adaptations are a hit-or-miss. Some are incredible and become classics, like To Kill A Mockingbird or Princess Bride. Some capture a generation. (The Harry Potter series) Some are just bleh. (Twilight) And then there's some that should have never been created in the first place. And, this turned out to be a prime example.
I also thought one of the reasons I didn't like it was the fact that I had just read the book so it was fresh in my head. And I know people do this with book to movie adaptations. (Harry Potter fans) They sit there and nit pick at all the differences or cuts. But, you have to kind of go into it with an open mind and chance the consequences of being disappointed later or end up being pleasantly surprised. Guess what happened.
I did think with the casting that it would be well done. I am not familiar with all of the works of the two leading ladies but I had seen enough to know they are quite talented. And, all done up in 16th century costuming, Natalie Portman looks like she could be Anne Boleyn. She's got the dark hair and eyes. And, she's gorgeous. Scarlett Johansson, also gorgeous. Mary Boleyn is described as pretty and fair. The sunny sister. Eric Bana, who played King Henry, I had never seen before but I think he is very good looking. Maybe not exactly how I pictured King Henry but sometimes you have to make exceptions. (Also, in looking at the IMDB cast list, Sherlock fans will be pleased to know that Benedict Cumberbatch is William Carey)
Acting was okay. This was a hit or miss situation. I did feel that some of the characters were portrayed differently than described in the book. Some either complete opposite or with not enough passion to their role. This was the case with Anne and Mary's parents. In the book, they're portrayed as really grasping and power hungry. They'll do anything to advance the family, even if it means throwing their own daughters under the carriage, so to speak, when something went wrong or accusations arose- however false they may have been. But, I didn't get that. It was more Mary and Anne and the parents were there to say "I told you not to" later on. It took away from the drama that was in the book. When I read the interactions between Mary and her parents or her uncle or Anne, or even Henry, I was glued to the page. But, I didn't get that same kind of emotion in the film. Almost wondered if any of the actors even read the book to get the right mood across. Apparently not. Henry was bleh. While he was incredibly good looking, he didn't have the fire and passion that I thought he should have. Now, this is after I've seen Jonathan Rhys Meyers play Henry in the Tudors and I fell in love with him, even when he was being an absolute creep. Because, he was so passionate in his portrayal. You wanted to love him when he was being tender. You were terrified when his temper flared. You wanted to slap him when he was being stupid. But, Eric Bana didn't do it for me.
Also, what was difficult was the idea of cramming a story that takes place over several years into a two hour film. If they wanted to really get the full impact of the story, I would have written it as a mini series. This was right around the time in pop culture when The Tudors was popular (a surprisingly good series, albeit highly inaccurate and over dramatized, but so are these books. That's the fun of historical fiction, though) so it might have worked in a similar fashion, just maybe tone down the sex because there is a LOT of it in the book. Not that I don't mind, sometimes. I primarily read YA, at least recently. But, I still like my steamy romance books. I've been reading them since I was 17. But, to get a broader audience, tone it down so it's still got the gist of the story but isn't as racy as the Tudors series was.
The story is completely twisted around. The whole point of the story is a view of the events of the court of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, but from Mary's point of view. She's the "other" one. The lesser known sister. But there is a lot of Anne. And, while she is a crucial part of the story, the book is about Mary's life and how she deals with being involved with Henry and then being cast aside for her ambitious sister. The one woman, up to that point, who wouldn't give the king what he wanted then and there until she got what she wanted. But, there are already so many versions of her story. I was excited to see another perspective and learn about another character in that world.
The biggest part of the story was completely glossed over. With some key players absent. Where was Cardinal Wolsey in all this? He was Henry's main adviser. And, I don't think he was in it barely at all. And then, the fact that Henry created his own Church just to grant himself a divorce. It was kind of "Oh, by the way, this happened." What? That is kind of important, you would think. It changed, not only English history, but the world in the long run.
On a few positives, I did like Scarlett Johansson as Mary. And, I liked Natalie Portman, although comparing, once again, to the Tudors series, I liked Natalie Dormer the best as Anne. But, you can't help shedding a tear or two at the end when she's executed. (And, that's not a spoiler, folks. It's history. Pick up a book.) The relationship between the two sisters, in terms of their acting, was very believable. Starting out sweet and they were close and having fun. And, over time, it sours. But, Mary still has that innocent outlook on the world that things will be okay, even when everything is falling apart.
So, maybe I'll take a screenwriting course someday and ask Philippa Gregory if I could turn the book into a mini series. Then you can get all the drama and the historical background that this film was sadly lacking.
I'd love to know your opinions. Do you agree/disagree with what I've said? Did you love this movie and think I'm insane for not liking it? What is the worst movie you've ever seen?
See you tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment