Lavishly made historical soap opera

Rating: 7/10 (27 July 2008)

It's the reign of King Henry VIII (Eric Bana), and as usual, the Boleyn family is plotting to take advantage of his inability to have a son with Katherine of Aragon (Ana Torrent). The weak but ambitious Thomas Boleyn (Mark Rylance) and their arrogant Uncle, the Duke of Norfolk (David Morrissey) enlist Anne (Natalie Portman) to be the King's mistress - but the headstrong Anne proves unsuitable, and so Anne's demure sister Mary (Scarlett Johansson) fills the role instead. Mary has the bad luck to fall for Henry, who dumps her when she becomes pregnant. Henry falls for Anne, but she is more reluctant: she manipulates him into divorcing Katharine, severing ties with Rome, and marrying her. Unable to bear Henry a son, Anne quickly falls out of his favor, and she must rely on her sister to save her life.
Yes, it's another film set in Tudor England, and the only new thing "The Other Boleyn Girl" can claim credit for is bringing Mary Boleyn to our attention. It's all been done before, and better. It's a lavishly made film with good acting and excellent production values; but story- and character-wise, it never rises above the level of melodrama.
The most interesting aspect of this film is its exploration of women in the 16th Century. Anne and Mary are loving sisters who are torn apart by their family's ambition. This was a time when women were nothing more than pawns of their family; society condemned them to be little more than wives, mothers, sex objects, and pawns in elaborate power games. Love doesn't matter, as marriages are arranged and parents can break up any relationship they dislike (as with Anne's match with Henry Percy). Girls like Mary simply accept their fate, leading to personal ruin and a miserable life. For a woman like Anne to stand up to the King is unthinkable; but in an age where women have no rights, it's the only way to gain the slightest bit of power.
The movie does a good job sketching this issue, and sets up a game of one-ups-manship between Anne and Mary. But this never really goes anywhere. Anne may be willing to sell Mary out to advance herself and her family, but Mary is too polite, and too noble to do the same. This would be interesting, if the first hour of the film isn't spent setting up a "Battle of the Boleyns". Mary is almost saintly in her nobility and loyalty to Anne, and in light of what happens here, one might question why. She's endearingly sincere, but as a result, she's a rather boring character compared to naughty Anne.
The movie also errs in skimming over the historical context in question. The movie somehow manages to go its whole length barely mentioning, if they do at all, Cardinal Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas More, Archbishop Cranmer - you know, the guys who made Henry's reign interesting - let alone the momentous changes set forth by Henry's actions. It's not dumbed-down history, it's non-existent history. We don't even get to see Anne's influence on Henry's reign. Does Anne have interest in religious reform? We don't hear about it, except in one or two oblique lines of dialogue. Yes, the politics are not the point, but how can you create a film about Henry VIII without acknowledging his achievements?
Curiously, I watched Anne of the Thousand Days this past week as well, and it shares the same basic flaw. Both films do a good job of establishing our characters and portraying Henry and Anne's decidedly rocky courtship, but once Anne actually assumes the throne, the movie goes south due to much-too-quick pacing and lack of focus. Unfortunately, here this flaw is magnified by MTV-style editing and complete lack of historical and political context, causing things to zip by at a ridiculous pace. Natalie Portman's acting and the powerful execution scene go some way towards redeeming this, but we get little or no indication of why Anne and Henry fall out of love; it just happens.
One of the most egregious bits is the ending. As in AotTD, we are also needlessly reminded in a neon-light display at the end that ELIZABETH I IS ANNE'S DAUGHTER! YES! THAT ELIZABETH! THE DAUGHTER HENRY DIDN'T WANT AND THAT HE KILLED ANNE FOR! In both instances, gimme a break. Is there in anyone the audience who doesn't know this going in?
Technically, the movie is gorgeous: the costumes, music and art decoration are as gorgeous as any other period film you care to name, but that comes with the territory. The real revelation here is Kieran McGuigan's ravishing cinematography, full of moody colors and tones that create an almost surreal storybook atmosphere.
The cast is generally good. Natalie Portman is an astonishing Anne, ravishingly beautiful throughout and capturing Anne's fiery and strong-willed nature (not to mention vastly improving on her previously naff English accent). Scarlett Johansson is a good Mary, although her role is the weaker of the two. Kristin Scott Thomas delivers a knock-out performance as the girls' sympathetic but helpless mother, with Mark Rylance and David Morissey appropriately loathsome. Jim Sturgess, Juno Temple and Benedict Cumberbatch are good enough in supporting roles, although Ana Torrent is a rather clichéd and uninteresting Katherine. But the film's weak spot is undoubtedly Eric Bana. Normally a very good actor, Bana attempts to create an unusually understated Henry, but instead he ends up a dreadful bore. Even in his angry scenes he is too nice to be the capricious monster we know Henry as. Even Jonathan Rhys-Meyers' scenery-chewing on The Tudors is light-years ahead of Bana's Henry.
The Other Boleyn Girl lives up to its source novel and its own billing. It's a pretty good historical soap opera, but that's about all it is. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
7/10