The Writers Need to go back to British History Class

Rating: 2/10 (17 June 2008)

The Other Boleyn Girl probably marks the debut of an adaptation of the most intriguing tale of English Royal history. However, very poorly does the film actually describe the events. I must say that probably the only accurate part of this movie is the inevitable ending--which I won't give away because there may be a few who don't actually know what happens.
I am quite the Anne Boleyn fanatic. She is one of my favorite historical figures due to her intelligence, wit and ambition. But this film completely let me down. Obviously Ms. Gregory and the people working on the film are partial to Mary Boleyn, for they idolize her throughout and scorn Anne. What for? Mary Boleyn was a naive and vain young woman who only wished for the king's attention for as long as any ordinary mistress could have it. She was unintelligent. Anne, however, used strategy to get what she wanted. She did not wish for love (perhaps not a noble thing, but at least she was honest about it); she wished for power. And she got it. Because of her refusals, she became Queen of England. It was only her growing ego and ambition that destroyed her--quite the theme; however the writers ignored it and decided to go with the cliché "love conquers all." Of course that is a noble truth, but Anne's downfall is much more interesting. I recommend reading her biography and the (somewhat fictional) diary by Carolyn Meyer.
The one thing I despised about this movie was how terribly inaccurate it was. Not only was it shown that one sister was favored over another by the writers, but also the historical portion was completely wrong. For one, Anne Boleyn was not the elder, more social and beautiful of the two. On the contrary, Mary was older by two or three years, and she was welcomed in by society because of her beauty and popularity. Anne was younger, darker, and she had two imperfections: A mole on her neck (believed to be Devil markings) and a sixth finger on her right hand. When she went to France she learned how to cover these imperfections and make herself seem flawless. Her wit was always present. And although I adore Eric Bana, he was a poor choice to play Henry VIII, one of the most morbidly obese men in all of history.
Also, it is quite evident throughout that Anne was vying for Henry's affections all along; however, Mary was the one who wanted to be his mistress. Anne was busy with a poet and musician in court until Henry began to take interest in her.
Perhaps because I am partial to Anne I found this movie so horrible. But I understand that she was a flawed human being who fell because of her ego. Still, the movie represented almost all of the characters horribly exaggerated. Anne was too bad, Mary was too good, Henry was too brutal, etc. I believe the only accurate characters in the film were the girls' mother, father, and uncle. their parts were true to history and made for an interesting relationship to follow.
I suppose I don't see the necessity of changing fact to fiction. The true story is already interesting enough. Even if the writers etc. have differing opinions there are many ways to illustrate a character as good or evil without altering history. People need to learn that history itself is a story that needs to be told ACCURATELY. It makes more sense, it's more believable, and it's much more entertaining for people like me who obsess over such inconsistencies.
Historical Accuracy aside, the movie was way too melodramatic for my tastes. there were no redeeming qualities other than the fact that Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johanssen really understood their characters. Kudos for playing not just an historical figure, but also for playing another person's opinion of an historical figure. It is not always easy. the action was very repetitive, and most of it not very good. I'm sorry, but I'd have to say no on this one. Even if you don't care about historical authenticity, the movie itself isn't great.
If you do care about the facts?? Run away. Fast.