The Flat Hat

Article Tools
Share on Facebook
Seed Newsvine
Send Article
Print

Natalie Portman shines in ‘Other Boleyn Girl’

The chief criticism regarding director Justin Chadwick’s “The Other Boleyn Girl,” based on Philippa Gregory’s best-selling novel, has been that it’s one big soap opera.

Courtesy Photo — Columbia Pictures. Natalie Portman [Left] and Scarlett Johannson portray Anne and Mary, the Boleyn sisters of sixteenth-century Britain Fame, in the new period piece, “The Other Boleyn Girl.”

Though Henry VIII did not invent sexual politics, this most notorious example of a royally shrewd libido may as well have. To call anything relating to Henry’s court a soap opera is just plain redundant.

The movie isn’t more sexually explicit than the facts, so this particular criticism should be leveled at history, not cinema’s interpretation. Accept the steamy, depressing tale, and you actually get a pretty decent movie.

As esteemed film critic Richard Roeper has pointed out, the performances are pretty good. To begin with the best, Natalie Portman (“Closer”) displays great talent as Anne, the ambitious older sister instructed by her uncle to catch the king’s eye. She plays the cocky, seductive role very well.

Where she really shines, however, is in her portrayal of fear. Few actresses can convey real terror as well as Portman. Her execution scene offers period-piece fans a refreshingly human interpretation. Anne looks like a petrified child, trying to be brave though shaking in her boots. The realism rejects sublimity in favor of sympathy, rendering her fate all the more horrific. Her scenes of despair are simply relentless.

Surprisingly, the incest theme is handled in a rather moving way. Terrified that her miscarriage will make Henry believe she’s witch, Anne looks elsewhere for impregnation. The scene in which she turns to her brother — played by the disarmingly boyish Jim Sturgess (“Across the Universe”) — in a moment of plaintive despair epitomizes the darkness of her ambition.

Portman makes us sympathize with Anne, despite the despicable betrayal of her sister. If this movie does one thing well, it gives the viewer a great sense of the era’s chaos. No matter how clever the heroines or ingratiating the family, the predatory court consumes all who reach too high.

Demure Mary, wed before her sister, provides an apt foil to Portman’s character. Sclarlett Johansson (“Lost in Translation”) gives a decent performance but, ultimately, plays herself. She wanders around with the same charming but confused look on her face that she uses in all her movies. It works, but it makes one wonder if we’ll ever see something new from her.

Eric Bana (“Munich”) plays Henry. At just over 6’2”, he manages an appropriately imposing figure. This Henry, however, proves a little quiet and bland. While this doesn’t seem very appropriate for Henry VIII, a famously large personality, his aloofness allows the movie to belong to Mary and Anne.

As is often the case in period pieces, which typically draw a slew of highly talented, second-tier actors, the supporting characters are wonderfully cast. Kristin Scott Thomas plays an elegant and moving Lady Boleyn. Playing Mary’s husband, Benedict Cumberhatch (“Atonement”) is an up-and-coming actor who deserves more Hollywood attention. Anna Torrent offers viewers a heartbreakingly magnanimous Katharine of Aragon, and Juno Temple (“Atonement”) gives another precocious performance as Jane Parker.

One of the most intriguing and compelling characters, however, is the Duke of Norfolk (the girls’ uncle), whose fierce ambition controls the entire family. David Morrissey plays the human callous frighteningly well. No matter how one feels about the three leads, these actors carry the movie’s energy with great skill.
And — as always must be mentioned for period films — the costumes are eyecatchingly beautiful. Tudor England bursts to life in its many textures and hues. The lavish sets and costumes, however, could’ve been utilized to convey a greater sense of history.

If the film does fail in one respect, it is this: unlike “Elizabeth,” “The Other Boleyn Girl” fails to portray what is at stake. There’s no sense of kingdom, just a lot of sex.