Faithful to neither history or the book

Rating: 3/10 (13 April 2008)

Historical novels often take liberties with history; its expected. And screenplays often take liberties with novels; also expected. And historical screenplays based on historical novels? Hmmm.
Predictably, then, this movie takes huge liberties with historical fact and Phillipa Gregory's historical fiction, and that is not a good thing.
Firstly, events taking place over a number of years are condensed. Mary's rise to Anne's fall appears to be over a maximum of about three years in the film. Events that did not occur were created to "add drama" but they have a bad effect on the narrative (eg. Mary pleading with the king to spare Anne and the King's last minute note warning Mary not to do so again just before Anne was executed). And key real (or at lease reported) events were cut, despite the inherent dramatic effect (eg. Anne's use of the young Elizabeth to appeal to Henry, Henry deserting Anne during a tournament without a goodbye).
Secondly, despite the cumbersome, heavy-handed exposition by just about every character, the movie fails to convey the harsh realities of court life in the Tudor period, where one's progress up the ladder or descent to the scaffold could be the result of either or both intricate plots by rival courtiers or simply the king's mood.
Thirdly, the overall characterisation is pitiful. Oh, Anne has one or two moments, but what about the other characters? Mary is portrayed as weak and, despite the movie's name, seems to be only a foil for Anne. Where was Mary's triumphant courtship with Henry, where was the proof that she was a worthy rival of Anne's (eg. the ship named in her honour) and Mary's romance with Stafford was so lacklustre as to be unbelievable. Queen Katherine is left on the sidelines for most of the movie (except for her magnificent display of queenly outrage before the court when her marriage is called into question). The young men in the movie were almost indistinguishable - Stafford, Carey and George Boelyn all had so little screen time and looked so much alike, the director could have saved money by having one actor play all three parts.
And lastly, a little bit of costume research would not have gone astray.