The Other Boleyn Girl

I think Anne looked more delicate than pretty... here's a quote from her Wikipedia page (link here) that I think sums her up quite nicely (Natalie Portman succeeded in bringing out the essence of Anne, I think).

Quote:

---

Anne’s charm lay not so much in her physical appearance as in her vivacious personality, her gracefulness, her quick wit and other accomplishments. She was petite in stature, and had an appealing fragility about her...she shone at singing, making music, dancing and conversation...

---

Thanks! You know, that's the best graduation / college congrats I've received to date! :star

You would think there would have been a portrait of Henry in his younger days somewhere....

First is him at 18, second at 29 and third at 44. The third shows him at the time he was married to Anne Boleyn. I'll take Eric Bana's king over the real one, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CCL;3032454;

First is him at 18, second at 29 and third at 44. The third shows him at the time he was married to Anne Boleyn. I'll take Eric Bana's king over the real one, please.

---

Thanks, CCL! Well, given that it's only recently that royal spouses have been chosen at least in part for looks I guess that's not surprising.
Boy, those 3 pictures do not look like the same guy, especially the first one. Massive hair color change for one thing, from black to reddish brown. Plus in the 2nd one the nose is much more bent or hooked. He actually got better looking as he got older, at least by today's standards.

I was also dissapointed in the movie, seemed rushed and i just couldnt accept Natalie Portman as Jane or Scarlett Johansson as Mary.... JMO but Eric Bana is about the furthest thing from what the real Henry looked like and he just wasnt convincing to me.

I've always thought Keith Mitchell looked the most like Henry in "Henry the VIII and his six wives" (at least he has the lighter colored hair and fair complexion), the other one i liked was Richard Burton as Henry in "Anne of a Thousand Days"

:)

does anyone know when this comes out on DVD? Since November when the movie came out I have read all of Phillipa Gregory's novels. Love them all.

As far as King Henry being attractive, it changes all the time, mostly it was his status that made him attactive. He had teeth, no small pock scars and bathed more than once a year.

Being relatively healthy was way "hawt" back then. Scars, lice, rickets, tooth decay and bathing habits tended to factor in on how attractive a man or woman was. If we were suddenly transported back then with no warning we all would fall over first from the God awful stench, then back ourselves into a corner with a big stick, praying for a can of Raid. :poke "mom and dad say i have to marrry you? oh hell no!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snickertink;3045082;

does anyone know when this comes out on DVD? Since November when the movie came out I have read all of Phillipa Gregory's novels. Love them all.

---

June 10th.

O i saw this the other day and thought it was actually pretty good.. I havent read the book in a long time but i think it stayed pretty true to it

I posted this the other day in the "Last movies you have rented" thread, but it is probably more appropriate here...

I enjoyed the movie, but felt there must have been a LOT more in the book because the movie didn't quite feel "complete" to me. I immediate went out and bought the book and I finished it yesterday!! The book was excellent - if you like the genre and the movie then I highly recommend reading the book. A few differences that I thought were really key:

1. In the book Mary is always the first choice of the family to go after Henry and the girls were pretty much raised in court. I don't know why the movie made it look like they were brought up in the "country" and Anne was the initial choice for her family to put forward. To me this changed the feel of the story completely.

2. I liked the actor who played Henry when I watched the movie. However, the book covers a lot of years and the point is made that he is young and handsome at the beginning of the story, but has become fat, balding, and is generally a rather distasteful guy by the end of the book. I think the consistent look of the actor was part of the reason I felt like only a short window of time was covered in the movie.

3. Maybe I'm already mis-remembering the movie, but I believe there were many fewer pregnancies in the movie. In the book Anne's last miscarriage before she is put to death is her third after two completely hidden miscarriages. The stories related to her lost pregnancies are also MUCH more elaborate than the movie suggests.

4. In the movie the charges against Anne and her brother are portrayed as a "simple" case of adultery/incest. The book has a much more complicated scenario around the charges against Anne and the activities of her brother.

5. Mary's role is completely minimized in the movie. Her husband is pretty much lost after she takes up with Henry and Stafford just pops in and says "come away with me" at some point. Both of these men are prominently positioned in the book. I would have liked to see more of that in the movie. Also the involvement of Mary's daughter Catherine as a young woman is non-existent in the movie.

ClosetRTWatcher, I just picked up the book as well after watching the movie but haven't had a chance to get started on it. Some of those inconsistencies that you point out, I was aware of, such as the absence of Mary's daughter Catherine and all of the miscarriages Anne had. Another inconsistency is that historians believe Mary was older than Anne. In the movie, Anne is portrayed as the oldest. Also, in the couple years before Anne's death, Mary had no contact with her.

I liked the actor who played Henry but as the story progressed, I found him to be a pig. There's no way I could have lived during those times. My head would have rolled much sooner than Anne's. :lol