“The Other Boleyn Girl”

By Tommy Ucciardi

CLAIREE: Anne Boleyn had six fingers.
OUISER: Who's Anne Berlin?
CLAIREE: Anne Boleyn. She was one of the six wives of Henry VIII.
OUISER: I never watch public television.
CLAIREE: She had six fingers.
OUISER: What happened to the other four?
CLAIREE: She had eleven total.
OUISER: Are you trying to confuse me? What are you talking about?

Poor Ouiser. All confused in that scene from 1989’s “Steel Magnolias.” And here we are, just under ten years later and she still wouldn’t find out what Clairee was talking about. Anne Boleyn’s “little piggies” aren’t mentioned in “The Other Boleyn Girl.” Yet, despite this absence, and a few production flaws, the film turned out to be a pleasant surprise.

Definitely playing off the success of Showtime’s original series “The Tudors” and both Cate Blanchett “tour-de-force” “Elizabeth” films, “The Other Boleyn Girl” centers on sisters Anne and Mary Boleyn (Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson) and their role as political pawns in 16th Century England.

Adapted by Peter Morgan (I know! Big shock! Another script about royalty. The man is obsessed) from the novel by Philippa Gregory, the film shows the triangle involving the Boleyn girls and King Henry VIII (Eric Bana…swoon!) which is masterminded by their father and uncle.  When first wife and Queen, Catherine of Aragon, is unable to produce a male heir, a scheme is plotted to seduce Henry by using first-born daughter Anne, hoping if she can produce a son, the family’s influence in court would increase. However, he has eyes for Mary. Uh-oh! Not to worry, the men aren’t picky and quickly whore out Mary to his horny Majesty. What about Anne? Well, she’s miffed. She wanted to be the King’s whore, damn it! What ensues is a ping-pong match of seduction and plotting that challenges a family, sisterly love, Catholicism in the nation, a king, his popularity, etc.; and every ounce of it puts all soap operas to shame.

Although the film has “young celebrity” names, perhaps as a way to draw in a “history bores me” crowd, there are some excellent performances. Natalie, in the Portman style we’ve come to expect, shows that despite being a popular young actress, she “gets it”; rather than saying words, she knows the dialogue is actually revealing a story and plot. We see Anne Boleyn with a dimension beyond that of a scheming woman, but also as someone in over her head, yet determined to succeed. Even after becoming Henry’s second Queen, and everything begins to collapse on top of her, Portman gives a believable performance as a frantic woman, grasping at anything to keep herself afloat.

However, by comparison, Johansson has a tendency to speak her lines…and that’s that. Luckily, director Justin Chadwick knew the trick to making her useful. Similar to “Girl With The Pearl Earring,” it’s always a wise decision to keep Scarlett’s lines down to a minimum so she can rely more on “eye-acting:” Surprise is equated with wide-eyes; anger with squinting and a furrowed brow; embarrassment means look away, etc. That is where Johansson shines.

Eric Bana is hot.

Another standout performance was by Kristin Scott Thomas as mama Boleyn, Lady Elizabeth. While not a central character, she took over all her scenes as a woman who married beneath her family status for love and as a 16th Century wife, finds herself completely powerless to protect her children from her pimp-husband’s flawed determination. She would definitely get an Oscar nod had the film been released closer to nomination time, but with a year away, and that “powerhouse of a thespian” Ellen Page out there, it probably won’t happen.

As a film, the story is a character piece and not a historical account of Henry VIII rule. Still, there were bits of information that could’ve received more attention without taking away from the Boleyn’s. I’m going to assume that production cost had a lot to do with the lack of a kingdom; except for speaking roles and a scattering of day-players, you wouldn’t know that Henry ruled over anyone—except for a CGI’d overview of an uproarious crowd surrounding the castle when Anne becomes Queen. As for her key role in the creation of The Church of England, and other political influences on the country, we are merely given a “cliff’s notes” version.
In a similar sense, the film suffers from abrupt scene transitions that are a bit irritating. This could be chalked up to Justin Chadwick’s prior experience as a television director. A lot of scenes are handled too quickly and end as though there had to be room for commercials. Still, what could’ve become a bland, “What saith thee on my lady,” piece about a historical catfight, contained well-crafted timing among the characters and an understanding of the story. The film is on the sister’s side. Instead of showing two women as mere victims or power hungry individuals, Chadwick presented them as resourceful and strong. Hell, at one point, when Anne’s manipulation of Henry is at its height, I so wanted to be her best friend. Above all else, we are given a look at two sisters that truly cared for each other after everyone else had finished with them.

Overall, “The Other Boleyn Girl” is an adequate period piece for anyone interested in the internal struggle of Anne, the Boleyn family and Henry VIII. It’ll influence some people to brush up on their British history and for others, it’ll be an entertaining refresher that your high school history teacher lacked. Surprisingly, what the film also manages to do after an enjoyable character journey is remind us of Anne’s ultimate gift to England…that ever lovable, super chic, Elizabeth I.