I have mentioned elsewhere that the Tudor family (particularly those two main pillars: Henry VIII and Elizabeth I) are the most popular British reigning family in Anglo-American films. Only Charles II (of the follow-up Stuart family), Henry V (of the Lancastrian Plantagenets), Richard III (of the York Plantagenets), Henry II (of the Plantagenets), and Victoria (of the Hanovarians) rival the Tudors, but only for their own immediate story or stories. In telling of all the intrigue and tragedy and glory the Tudors still beat the others.
Yet this wonderful film study of Henry VIII and his second wife was somehow not as successful as it should have been. Although it gained Oscar recognition, it did not win anything notable - and that is due to an ironic delay in it's production.
"Anne Of A Thousand Days" appeared in 1948 on Broadway, and was a critically acclaimed triumph (his last one) for the overrated Maxwell Anderson. Anderson and his "blank verse" Elizabethan tragedies ("Mary Of Scotland"; "Elizabeth The Queen") had been popular in the 1930s and both were turned into films (with Katherine Hepburn and Frederic March in the first and Bette Davis and Errol Flynn in the second). One might say "Anne" was the conclusion of a trilogy on Tudor tragedy and history. Anne was also a great dramatic triumph for it's star, Rex Harrison, who won the Tony Award for his portrayal of Henry VIII. It was a personal success for him as well, for he was currently being pilloried in the press for being the man who (supposedly) caused Carol Landis to commit suicide as their love affair ended.
Unfortunately the story of Henry's courtship, pursuit of Anne, his divorce from Katherine of Aragon (and the resulting English Reformation), his disappointment when Anne only produces one living child - a daughter named Elizabeth, and his destruction of Anne (literally taken to the executioner's block at Tower Hill) included bits and pieces of infidelity, illegitimacy, and incest: the three "I" taboos of motion picture codes in 1948. So we missed out on Harrison making a film record of his great performance. And the play did not appear on the screen until twenty years passed.
Despite the pomposity of Anderson's mock-Tudor writing, the play was actually good due to it's story. Anne is a brave woman, and an ambitious one. She is a fit wife for Henry - but she is unlucky to have the same problem that Katherine had (a problem that only Jane Seymour did not have) of not fathering a legitimate male heir who survived. Even Jane's child, the future Edward VI, would only live to be an advanced teenager before he died in 1553. There may have been something physical wrong with Henry (who did die of syphilis) that prevented his sperm from producing strong males. By the way, he did have an illegitimate son, Henry, Earl of Richmond, who was considered a possible heir on several occasions, but died in 1536.
Burton gave a wonderful interpretation of Henry, the complex man seeking happiness but also determined to have his way as he is King. Critical reaction to his performance was only negative in that Henry VIII had red hair (which trait he passed to his daughter Elizabeth), not black like Burton's. But that was a minor flaw. Genevieve Bujold was quite memorable as Anne (who was brought up in France - ironically one of the last "favors" Henry gave her was to allow her to be beheaded by a French swordsman from Calais, not an English axeman). Anthony Quayle was certainly thoughtful as Cardinal Wolsey, watching his great power collapse in his failure to secure a papal divorce for his real master. John Collicos is a properly ruthless Thomas Cromwell, while William Squire is adequate as Thomas More and Joseph O'Conor gets a chance to show Bishop Fisher's moral strength.
But that's just the problem here. This history lesson was given to the public - brilliantly given - just three years earlier in "A Man For All Seasons", which emphasized Thomas More's struggle of conscience over gratitude in the English Reformation of the 1530s. It is not to disparage "Anne" as a film to say that "All Seasons" covered the same or most of the same territory better or just or well. But it got there first. This is why "Anne" is rarely revived while "All Seasons" has been. One also has to admit that altruistic More is a better figure to sympathize and honor (as his fellow martyr Fisher is) than the unlucky but ambitious Anne. So the public felt. Both are first rate films, and "Anne" does go a step further into the matter of how she's framed by Henry and Cromwell for divorce and execution purposes. But we heard all this before - and from a morally higher position.
Yet this wonderful film study of Henry VIII and his second wife was somehow not as successful as it should have been. Although it gained Oscar recognition, it did not win anything notable - and that is due to an ironic delay in it's production.
"Anne Of A Thousand Days" appeared in 1948 on Broadway, and was a critically acclaimed triumph (his last one) for the overrated Maxwell Anderson. Anderson and his "blank verse" Elizabethan tragedies ("Mary Of Scotland"; "Elizabeth The Queen") had been popular in the 1930s and both were turned into films (with Katherine Hepburn and Frederic March in the first and Bette Davis and Errol Flynn in the second). One might say "Anne" was the conclusion of a trilogy on Tudor tragedy and history. Anne was also a great dramatic triumph for it's star, Rex Harrison, who won the Tony Award for his portrayal of Henry VIII. It was a personal success for him as well, for he was currently being pilloried in the press for being the man who (supposedly) caused Carol Landis to commit suicide as their love affair ended.
Unfortunately the story of Henry's courtship, pursuit of Anne, his divorce from Katherine of Aragon (and the resulting English Reformation), his disappointment when Anne only produces one living child - a daughter named Elizabeth, and his destruction of Anne (literally taken to the executioner's block at Tower Hill) included bits and pieces of infidelity, illegitimacy, and incest: the three "I" taboos of motion picture codes in 1948. So we missed out on Harrison making a film record of his great performance. And the play did not appear on the screen until twenty years passed.
Despite the pomposity of Anderson's mock-Tudor writing, the play was actually good due to it's story. Anne is a brave woman, and an ambitious one. She is a fit wife for Henry - but she is unlucky to have the same problem that Katherine had (a problem that only Jane Seymour did not have) of not fathering a legitimate male heir who survived. Even Jane's child, the future Edward VI, would only live to be an advanced teenager before he died in 1553. There may have been something physical wrong with Henry (who did die of syphilis) that prevented his sperm from producing strong males. By the way, he did have an illegitimate son, Henry, Earl of Richmond, who was considered a possible heir on several occasions, but died in 1536.
Burton gave a wonderful interpretation of Henry, the complex man seeking happiness but also determined to have his way as he is King. Critical reaction to his performance was only negative in that Henry VIII had red hair (which trait he passed to his daughter Elizabeth), not black like Burton's. But that was a minor flaw. Genevieve Bujold was quite memorable as Anne (who was brought up in France - ironically one of the last "favors" Henry gave her was to allow her to be beheaded by a French swordsman from Calais, not an English axeman). Anthony Quayle was certainly thoughtful as Cardinal Wolsey, watching his great power collapse in his failure to secure a papal divorce for his real master. John Collicos is a properly ruthless Thomas Cromwell, while William Squire is adequate as Thomas More and Joseph O'Conor gets a chance to show Bishop Fisher's moral strength.
But that's just the problem here. This history lesson was given to the public - brilliantly given - just three years earlier in "A Man For All Seasons", which emphasized Thomas More's struggle of conscience over gratitude in the English Reformation of the 1530s. It is not to disparage "Anne" as a film to say that "All Seasons" covered the same or most of the same territory better or just or well. But it got there first. This is why "Anne" is rarely revived while "All Seasons" has been. One also has to admit that altruistic More is a better figure to sympathize and honor (as his fellow martyr Fisher is) than the unlucky but ambitious Anne. So the public felt. Both are first rate films, and "Anne" does go a step further into the matter of how she's framed by Henry and Cromwell for divorce and execution purposes. But we heard all this before - and from a morally higher position.