Watching The Other Boleyn Girl

I’m not much of a movie-reviewer. Or a movie watcher for that matter. (Which is why we’ve had the same two Netflix movies for about two months now.)

But when I heard that The Other Boleyn Girl was coming out, I knew I had to see it. And so I did last week with Conservative Mom.

The thing is, I’m a cynic when it comes to movies based on books—especially books I’ve read and enjoyed. Rarely have I ever found the movie to be better than—or even close to as good as—the book. I’m a reader. I’m a lover of words. That’s the way I’ll always be.

Plus I heard that this particular movie wasn’t as good as it was originally expected to be. But I decided I still had to see it, because I’ve been a sucker for Philipa Gregory’s historical fiction since two Christmases ago, when I picked up my mom’s copy of The Other Boleyn Girl and, although up until that point I would never have considered myself a fan of her sort of historical fiction, I was hooked.

I read the novel as fast as I could (it's a quick read despite its heft) and became thoroughly caught up in the historical drama that was the reign of the Tudors. Since then, I’ve read quite a few of her other novels and enjoyed them as well. This sort of novel may not be at the top of my “quality” reading list, but it’s a great escape from the usual books I read. (Who doesn’t like a lusty court and a bit of royal intrigue thrown in among all that nonfiction reading?)

Besides (please don’t laugh at this fact), since I was a child, I’ve always dreamed that one day someone would perfect the art of time travel so I could experience all the historical periods I so often imagine. Depending on what held my interest at the time, I’ve wanted to homestead a la Little House on the Prairie, live it up in the roaring ’20s, you name it. And spending a bit of time amidst the Tudor court would be high on my list too. That’s why I love reading these books, and why I was excited to see the movie.

Anyhow, I’ve digressed a bit. Funny how often that happens. Back to the movie.

As I expected, the costumes were much better in the movie than in my mind. The colors, the textures, the mood, the dark, damp buildings and the dreary scenery. It was all much like I pictured it, but somehow much more vivid. And I thought the casting was pretty fabulous too—but who wouldn’t say that, with Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman as the leads?

The plot, however? And the character development? Not quite up to snuff, in my very unprofessional opinion.

All the way through the book, I rooted for Mary (Scarlett Johansson). In the movie, she was just kind of there—cleavage and misguided love for King Henry in tow, but not a whole lot else going on there.

The movie just zips through things like all movies do—forget about the depths of the family ambition, the subplots, the slow pace at which the initial romance between the King and Mary comes about. In one scene, she’s getting married (to a guy we don't really see after that). In the next, she’s pregnant with the King’s baby. OK. Maybe not quite that quickly. But close.

It’s probably better that it’s been a couple of years since I read the book, because it wasn’t quite as easy to point off the discrepancies in the film. But I knew from the get-go things were “off.” Every once in a while, Conservative Mom and I would look at one another and say, “I don’t think that’s right.”

And, most of the time, we were right. The movie focused a lot on the bitter sister rivalry between the two lead characters, which I don't recall from the book. And in the book, the girls’ mother is as ruthless and power-hungry as the rest of the Boleyn-Howard clan, while in the movie she’s concerned with the interests of her girls. I could go on ... about how the king violently "took advantage of" (to put it nicely) Anne before they actually married ... about how Mary suddenly married again, although we never heard what happened to her first husband. And at the end? The whole almost-incestuous relationship between Anne and her brother George? Not quite how it was depicted in the book. (In the novel, there wasn't an "almost.")

Learn more about the inaccuracies from this AV Club article. Or just go see it yourself. Even if it's not all that accurate to history or the book, it's still an entertaining, visually pleasing romp through Tudor England's rocky past.