Watching Showtime

Over the weekend a group of friends and I went and saw The Other Boleyn Girl. We smartly left all the boys we know out of the equation, opting to have a girls night, which was definitely the right decision. They’d have freaked out at the “chick flick� nature of the film after ten minutes, without question.

Afterwards, I picked up the book to start reading it, but before I could crack the cover I started comparing the movie with Showtime’s The Tudors. Based on the same characters, following the same basic story (both take liberties, albeit different ones), there’s a lot to compare.

For my full synopsis and comparison, keep reading after the jump. But a warning: there will probably be some spoilers, so if you haven’t seen the movie yet, and don’t want to know anything, stop reading now!

The issue most reviewers are having with the movie is Natalie Portman in the role of Ann Boleyn. I’ll admit I was even a little skeptical, more because of the amazing job Natalie Dormer does at the role in The Tudors. After watching her heave and pant and muck up the previously tidy life of King Henry, I didn’t think there was any way another actress could play the role as well. I have to say, however, I give it to Natalie Portman. The Ann Boleyn she was playing didn’t start out conniving, but the transition she made? It was seamless. Brilliant even. Banished to France for several months, before Ann left there were shades of cunning to her personality, but being amongst French women was apparently all she needed to take the fate of England into her own hands. What that says about French women at the time is an entirely separate conversation.

At any rate, The Other Boleyn Girl takes the character of Ann to a level of crazy that I thought wasn’t possible. Ann single-handedly hatches the plot to seduce the king (away from her sister Mary, no less!), decides on her own to convince the King to break from the Catholic Church, and even goes to extremes when she miscarries what would have been a son (and can I just say her ideas? Ew.). In reality, I’m not sure Ann did all this herself, and I like the involvement her family has in the entire operation in The Tudors much more. It seems more plausible that she was pushed into the role of seductress by her father, and then took to the job much better than anyone could have imagined.

As for the role of King. If there was a way to combine Eric Bana’s rugged handsomeness with JRM’s phenomenal portrayal of Henry, I’d be on board in a heartbeat. I’ve always admitted to liking JRM a little more than I should, but watching Eric Bana in the role of king was much better than I ever could have expected. And to be honest, he’s built more like a man that will one day get fat and horrible, but in his youth (and in my imagination) had all the vigor and vitality of a man who bedded hundreds of women and changed the religious course of a nation. It didn’t hurt that he looks so good with his shirt off, either. But he didn’t have the conniving look that JRM gets so often when plotting against his own court, a mark of Henry that I can’t imagine didn’t exist. He couldn’t have fallen so completely in love with Ann if they didn’t share that common trait.

All in all I enjoyed the two hours I spent in the theater with my friends and The Other Boleyn Girl. I’m excited to read the book, find out what got left out of the film adaptation, and then start picking up some more non-fiction on the Tudor dynasty. I’m officially hooked on Henry, Elizabeth, and the rest of those crazy kids!