REVIEW: 'The Other Boleyn Girl'

By Connect Mason Reviewer Emily Culley

I try to approach historical movies with a grain of salt. Most of the time Hollywood fictionalizes portions of the actual history to better sell the movie. Additionally, I try to approach books turned into movies with a grain of salt, for the same reason.

Then should The Other Boleyn Girl be approached with two grains of salt?

In 2002, author Philippa Gregory published The Other Boleyn Girl and won the Parker Romantic Novel of the Year award. The film stars Scarlett Johansson as Mary Boleyn, Natalie Portman as Anne Boleyn, and Eric Bana as King Henry Tudor in the leading roles.

The costumes were designed by Sandy Powell, who did the costumes for Shakespeare in Love. I thought the costumes were well sewn, with elaborate colors. I also love the attention that was given to the costumes, as the family became more involved in the court the costumes became more eloquent and elaborate. Furthermore, after Mary left the court her costumes became more homely and less for the public.

The acting was also amazing; Portman, Johansson and Bana bring everything they have to the table. I have to admit I enjoyed Portman’s portrayal the best. It is obvious to see that she had a lot of fun playing the scheming Boleyn, which normally makes for great character development. The three foreign (the story is set in England, making American actors foreign) actors have been questioned by many critics and avid history buffs, though I think they managed to pull it off.

The plot moves so quickly from one liaison to another that it’s hard to keep track of time. Historians say that Mary Boleyn was the King’s mistress for at least 10 years, however the movie makes it seem as if the affair were only a couple of months before she bore a child. By the end of the movie I decided that the best way to keep track of time was to watch the growth of the Boleyn’s stomach and then the growth of the children—which unfortunately were kept off screen for the main part.

Aside from that, the minor historical inaccuracies were not a problem within the movie. Perhaps it’s because much of what happened is speculation. The major parts within history were portrayed well, and were taken from the hard known facts of the time. And with the book? The differences prove to be more invasive, as at times the movie steers completely away from the book.

RATING: B-