King Henry VIII is the most Oscar-nominated character in history, having earned one for Charles Laughton who held chicken drumsticks like no on in "The Private Life of Henry VIII", his sole nomination for Robert Shaw who stole the show in "A Man of All Seasons" and last but not least to join that prestigious line-up: Richard Burton. Of the three, he might be the most sensible hence the least memorable. Henry was remembered for his flamboyance and exuberance and somewhat Burton decided to play him coolly yet with the vulnerability of a child bullied by a great divine instance that refuses him male heirs. After watching "Becket", I read Burton wished he could play the part of Henry who had a richer range of emotions, but the more I get into Burton, the more I feel his weary and contemplative approach to acting, he's got charisma and yet authority hardly emanates from his because he's too tormented to even control himself, which isn't too unwise an actor for a character like Henry VIII.
That's why his reign is just a darling for Hollywood. It has everything: obsession, love, lust, passion, hubris, politics, conspiracy, trials and many heads ending on the ballot. It's below-the-waist matters leading to the most pivotal episode of British history and producing one of its greatest monarchs Queen Elizabeth or as Pauline Kael put it "Anne's posthumous triumph". So, who needs books to learn about British monarchy history when you have Best Picture nominees (and occasional winners)? After having been inspired by Thomas More's integrity in "A Man of All Seasons", mesmerized by the rising charisma of "Elizabeth", now I feel like I almost completed my knowledge about Henry VIII's tumultuous reign with Charles Jarrott's "Anne of the Thousand Days", adapted from Maxwell Anderson's play. And I'm so proud to recognize some names like Norfolk or Cardinal Wosley (remarkably played by Anthony Quayle) And as Anne, Genevieve Bujold, is the perfect match for a Burtonesque character, a woman who can control the man who wants to control everything.
Anne is a young experienced girl, deprived of that virginity upon which the legend of her daughter would be built. She's lively and has a personality that throws sparkles all over the court. We first see her being lifted by her fiancé Lord Percy (Terence Wilton), she's in the air short enough so one head turns to her direction and notices her, it's the king. From that moment, he'll only have eyes for her. These three seconds are simply perfect and give that edge to cinema over the play where eye-language can't be perceptible. That look is the first brick to pave the road of a cultural revolution in Britain but it's handled in a rather trivial way. The Queen Catherine of Aragon, played in all matrimonial dignity by Irene Papas who specialized in roles of martyred wives, leaves the royal ball, the music stops but the King insists the show must go on. That scene find a powerful echo later in the film when Anne is the Queen and Henry starts having eyes on Jane Seymour, showing that the reign of Henry VII was all but a series of new beginnings.
The whole challenge of "Anne of the Thousand Days" is to make this transition from one Queen to another a riveting experience on both a human and political level, with Bujold's performance as a queen who wouldn't sell herself cheaply to a man who absolutely adores her is full of surprisingly unpredictable scenes. That Burton makes his King a little more accessible allows her to play 'hard to get', she has reasons to loathe him as she was prevented to marry her true love but on the other hand, she was advised not to give herself too easily for Henry would immediately renounce her. It is a slight possibility that she truly loved him and thus feigned indifference. And it is possible that Henry followed his courts' advisers to show his tender side. The film is a like a romantic game of hide-and-seek that hides graver diplomatic matters (with Spain and the Vatican) and one woman's personal ambition.
Anne wants to be the Queen and she promises sons if he can make her so and if he can't divorce Catherine, he'll use his power to cancel his wedding. It all can be summed up in Thomas More's warning to Norfolk "tell him what he ought to do, not what he's able to do". It's the most dangerous thing to tell a man such as Henry for what he can do because he'd realize sooner that he can do anything The catch is that Anne must fulfill her promise and if a king can make himself marry anyone, he can't control which chromosome he gives. The film is then a series of political machinery that all end up breaking on the wall of destiny: Henry can't have a male child, not one that can live after birth anyway. And divorce is like murder, one you do it once, the second time is no other and so.
The little weakness of the film is that we get from a passionate sequence between the two to Henry's immediate rejection of Anne after the second "failed birth" and so her demise seems rather abrupt, not as smooth as Thomas More's slow descent in disgrace in "A Man for All Seasons", but then-again Burton's performance redeems these flaws as he never really displays true hatred, he's just a man who wants to convince himself that he's doing the right thing. And Anne is not a heroine either, she has the blood of purer souls in her hands but it was worth having the future of England in her womb. The film is the collisions of two dangerous convictions: "I will have a son", "I will bear the future monarch of England", guess who was right?
That's why his reign is just a darling for Hollywood. It has everything: obsession, love, lust, passion, hubris, politics, conspiracy, trials and many heads ending on the ballot. It's below-the-waist matters leading to the most pivotal episode of British history and producing one of its greatest monarchs Queen Elizabeth or as Pauline Kael put it "Anne's posthumous triumph". So, who needs books to learn about British monarchy history when you have Best Picture nominees (and occasional winners)? After having been inspired by Thomas More's integrity in "A Man of All Seasons", mesmerized by the rising charisma of "Elizabeth", now I feel like I almost completed my knowledge about Henry VIII's tumultuous reign with Charles Jarrott's "Anne of the Thousand Days", adapted from Maxwell Anderson's play. And I'm so proud to recognize some names like Norfolk or Cardinal Wosley (remarkably played by Anthony Quayle) And as Anne, Genevieve Bujold, is the perfect match for a Burtonesque character, a woman who can control the man who wants to control everything.
Anne is a young experienced girl, deprived of that virginity upon which the legend of her daughter would be built. She's lively and has a personality that throws sparkles all over the court. We first see her being lifted by her fiancé Lord Percy (Terence Wilton), she's in the air short enough so one head turns to her direction and notices her, it's the king. From that moment, he'll only have eyes for her. These three seconds are simply perfect and give that edge to cinema over the play where eye-language can't be perceptible. That look is the first brick to pave the road of a cultural revolution in Britain but it's handled in a rather trivial way. The Queen Catherine of Aragon, played in all matrimonial dignity by Irene Papas who specialized in roles of martyred wives, leaves the royal ball, the music stops but the King insists the show must go on. That scene find a powerful echo later in the film when Anne is the Queen and Henry starts having eyes on Jane Seymour, showing that the reign of Henry VII was all but a series of new beginnings.
The whole challenge of "Anne of the Thousand Days" is to make this transition from one Queen to another a riveting experience on both a human and political level, with Bujold's performance as a queen who wouldn't sell herself cheaply to a man who absolutely adores her is full of surprisingly unpredictable scenes. That Burton makes his King a little more accessible allows her to play 'hard to get', she has reasons to loathe him as she was prevented to marry her true love but on the other hand, she was advised not to give herself too easily for Henry would immediately renounce her. It is a slight possibility that she truly loved him and thus feigned indifference. And it is possible that Henry followed his courts' advisers to show his tender side. The film is a like a romantic game of hide-and-seek that hides graver diplomatic matters (with Spain and the Vatican) and one woman's personal ambition.
Anne wants to be the Queen and she promises sons if he can make her so and if he can't divorce Catherine, he'll use his power to cancel his wedding. It all can be summed up in Thomas More's warning to Norfolk "tell him what he ought to do, not what he's able to do". It's the most dangerous thing to tell a man such as Henry for what he can do because he'd realize sooner that he can do anything The catch is that Anne must fulfill her promise and if a king can make himself marry anyone, he can't control which chromosome he gives. The film is then a series of political machinery that all end up breaking on the wall of destiny: Henry can't have a male child, not one that can live after birth anyway. And divorce is like murder, one you do it once, the second time is no other and so.
The little weakness of the film is that we get from a passionate sequence between the two to Henry's immediate rejection of Anne after the second "failed birth" and so her demise seems rather abrupt, not as smooth as Thomas More's slow descent in disgrace in "A Man for All Seasons", but then-again Burton's performance redeems these flaws as he never really displays true hatred, he's just a man who wants to convince himself that he's doing the right thing. And Anne is not a heroine either, she has the blood of purer souls in her hands but it was worth having the future of England in her womb. The film is the collisions of two dangerous convictions: "I will have a son", "I will bear the future monarch of England", guess who was right?