O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Rental
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / March 4, 2008
There is a moment in “The Other Boleyn Girl” of such singular power, it is as if a thousand daggers fly out of the screen toward the audience. Natalie Portman proved her performance prowess in the first 10 minutes of “Free Zone” (2005), an otherwise unwatchable film. But her one look, one solitary expression that she gives to her rival, Mary, exalts her talents anew. But to be fair, this brief, masterful scene is the product of the actors’ ensemble, as well as the other filmmakers’ contributions. You’ll know the moment when you see it because you’ll feel it.
The next characteristic that makes “The Other Boleyn Girl” excellent is the way its complicated story is told so simply. We don’t have to be history majors to follow its complex and intriguing plot. (In fact, history majors are typically displeased with such films, due to historical inaccuracies.) But setting history aside, such screenwriting achievements should always be recognized, so I commend Peter Morgan, who wrote the screenplay, and of course, Philippa Gregory who wrote the novel.
In addition to being easy to follow, this film is also easy to watch. Yes, the third thing that makes “The Other Boleyn Girl” excellent is its beauty, from its costumes, to its actors, to its photography; it’s easy on the eyes. And speaking to the cinematography, the first half of the film is photographed in sunny, warm oranges and yellows, as the movie happily begins. But as the Boleyn saga unfolds, spiraling downward into twisted, moral grotesqueries, the palette becomes dim and dreary, with bleak grays and blues. This cinematography beautifully parallels the initial brightness to Mary’s angelic personality, and the latter darkness to Anne’s, according to their respective time periods when they’re each close to the king. I say well done to Kieran McGuigan, the director of photography.
Surprisingly, yet commendably, “The Other Boleyn Girl,” which is largely about propagating the royal family, is rated PG-13, not R. There are several moments of kissing and tight, passionate embraces, essentially “soap opera sex,” which was PG-13-ish last time I saw a soap opera. (But who knows? That description might not work with today’s soap operas.) Any potential nudity, which I’m not sure exists in the film, is either blurred or quickly glimpsed. Either way, if the film has nudity, it’s indiscernible. The PG-13 rating is appropriate for this movie.
And of course, all of this review’s praise also belongs to the film’s director, Justin Chadwick, the conductor who orchestrated these winning elements harmoniously.
My plot summary will be scant: If you already know the story, you won’t need it; and if you don’t know the story, you should be able to enjoy the unraveling surprises during the movie. “The Other Boleyn Girl” is set in 16th-century England, where Anne (Natalie Portman), Mary (Scarlett Johansson) and George (Jim Sturgess) are the children of Sir Thomas (Mark Rylance) and Lady Elizabeth Boleyn (Kristin Scott Thomas), the sister of the despicably portrayed Duke of Norfolk (David Morrissey), a close friend of Henry VIII (Eric Bana), the king of England.
Henry Tudor and his queen, Katherine of Aragon (Ana Torrent), have been unsuccessful in their attempts to produce a male heir to the throne, a grave concern for the royal family. The Duke of Norfolk and his brother-in-law, Thomas Boleyn, see an opportunity: They plan to have Anne charm her way into the king’s bed in hopes of producing a male heir and thus, solidifying the family’s lofty station in the king’s good graces.
But it doesn’t unfold that way. The king’s eye falls upon Mary, Anne’s married sister. But Anne is determined to not be overlooked. Mayhem and atrocities ensue.
As I alluded above, the cast is excellent. Eric Bana can do no wrong, as far as I’m concerned. (You can cite “Hulk” (2003) all you like, but that wasn’t Bana’s fault.) Scarlett Johansson has slowly come to be a captivating force on the silver screen. And be sure to watch for Kristin Scott Thomas’ and Ana Torrent’s chilling deliveries in their roles.
“The Other Boleyn Girl” is ultimately a tale about two sisters and their unfortunate sibling rivalry. I was reminded of Highlights Magazine’s “Goofus and Gallant” comic: Anne is the former, Mary the latter. But the discrepancy between Portman’s Queen Amidala and Queen Anne also conjures that comic strip. But there again, we have another example where it wasn’t the actor’s fault.
Directed by Justin Chadwick
Natalie Portman / Scarlett Johansson / Eric Bana
Drama 115 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for mature thematic elements, sexual content and some violent images)
U.S. Release Date: February 29, 2008
Copyright 2008: 252
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Jason. I feel compelled to kindly disagree with you on your review, even though I know it is silly to review the reviewer, I can not sight this movie as anything above mediocre.
Now, I do LOVE a good period piece, and I agree that much of the wardrobe was exquisite; however, am I the one who found the ever matching attire of both the sisters a bit distasteful/borderline over the top? (Please believe that I in no way mean to undermine Sandy Powelle's inventions, as she is usually outstanding when it comes to wardrobe/costume) For example, one of the first scenes, when Anne and Mary are walking together in the woods wearing two matching dresses seemingly spun from the Von Trapp Family's curtain supply. Also, after Anne is sent away to France to "learn her lesson", she comes back wearing some strange leather choker coddling a large capital 'B' in an annoyingly, unavoidably apparent way up until the very end of the movie.
The plot..
and painstakingly slow and slightly above completely dull buildup to the climax are ok, and quite honestly, nothing more than that.
The camera angles and cinematography, though I am no professional when it comes to this, feel condensed and uncreative. I felt like I was watching every scene from the same perspective, and I began to feel a little claustrophobic. I disagree with your assessment that the first half of the piece was filmed in brighter hues. From start to finish, the gray color palette distracts much of the camera shots, while additionally creating vivid contrasts for others.
The acting..
I love, Natalie Portman, and think that she did marvelously; however, Scarlett Johansson? Really? I understand that there was to be a strong character contrast between the two sisters, but does being kind hearted and submissive also imply that you are dull and expressionless? I thought her demeanor was lacking in some of the most pivotal moments of the moment, ie: when Anne was getting publicly decapitated, and Mary looks up at her with one of the oddest facial fronts I have ever seen- or even, when Mary nonchalantly strolls into the palace and placidly announces, "I'm taking the baby."... No, I did not expect her to scream,shout, or rip her hair out, or anything dramatic like that for that matter; but, at least project the idea that "kind" people can have some base of feelings and/or viable emotions too. I don't think Mary's character was meant to be completely stupid or drone-like, but at times, that was the impression that I undeniably could not shake.
Personally, I felt as if there was no center to the film... the purpose was obscure, and I really found no one that I could connect to or identify with. Aside from Anne (and this was only mildly), I could hardly sense the real motivation behind any of the characters. For instance, Henry is depicted as troubled and distressed, but truly, never once could I accurately pinpoint the source of his emotional struggles or physical perils that were forever plighting him. I guess this is partially my own fault, but even still, I can't help but to push a little bit of the blame on the poor characterization within the film. Perhaps it was the script that needed some revision- how many times did we really have to hear the king say something along the lines of: "and now Anne, will you give yourself to me?"
Don't get me wrong, The Other Boleyn Girl was a some what decent film to spend a night on, but from such an exciting book and monumental history line, I guess I just hoped that it would have been much more than what it was. I think that today, after the industry has been so crowded with "period pieces", viewers have given up historical facts for the sake of temporary drama- which is ok, and I must admit, that I too am guilty of this. Anything that tried to be more historically correct instead of entertainingly pleasing would probably be more of a Tim Burns documentary, instead of a Friday night "must see". But I would just hope that in these cases, or at least in the future, entertainment would strive to be more captivating- in a sense that's real and relatable, and less stimulating in the field of soap operas and gossip magazines. At the end of the day, this movie had elaborate textiles, and nothing more.
P.s. maybe I missed something within the patchy plot lines, but whatever happened to Mary's first husband? You know, the one she actually married for love? I feel like his ending was either ignored or just completely forgotten... But then again, maybe I'm just inattentive.
Post a Comment