Anne Boleyn

There are lots of inaccuracies, but they are happening in an effort to make the story more universal and modern, and I have no problem with that in itself if it appeals to a younger audience.

I'm not sure what I think yet. It is certainly a different approach to telling the story. I do like that it is showing the story as one between a man and a woman, rather than just a king and a queen, and that we can see how her world slipped away from her through no fault of her own.

I'm not sure why history should be made modern.

This is where I found it Namsnanny

www.houseofnames.com

Can't vouch for the accuracy!

It seems a bit odd to me to complain about the colour of an actor's skin but accept complete inaccuracies in how women were treated in the Tudor court and basic facts we know from historic documents.

Now I've watched the first part my main complaint isn't that Anne is black but that Henry is so unimpressive. He was agiant of a man in the 1500s and people feared him. This Henry is indistinguishable from the rest of the court.

Not sure about leaping on him either. In those days the only acceptable way of sex was the missionary position. Anything else was basically immoral. There were rumours that Anne had learned interesting techniques in France but we don't know how far these went.

Yes I was very disappointed with Henry he had no presence whatsoever. Will reserve judgement on the programme itself until I see the next one which I think is tomorrow night.

Callistemon

I'm not sure why history should be made modern.

I'm not saying that it should - just that I like the fact that the story is being made timeless, which (execution aside!) I think it is.

The story could be told in any era as a tale of a man who falls in love, pursues the woman until she gives in/marries him, and is blissfully happy for a short time until he gets bored. When that happens, everything she does annoys him, he finds a new woman on whom to fixate, gets rid of the first one, and the cycle starts all over again.

As has been said, this is a drama, not a history lesson. Using the bones of one story to tell another one is a perfectly valid literary device.

How successful this production will be remains to be seen, of course - we are only a third of the way in. I think it is flawed, but interesting. Anne's fear and desperation is made clear, as is the fact that she has done nothing to deserve it.

Also, Jane Seymour is not being played as an innocent virginal mouse, as she usually is, which is probably far more accurate historically. Henry married her 11 days after Anne's execution, which is horribly heartless, but typical of the way in which some people can simply turn their back on ex-lovers when they have tired of them.

Chestnut

Both those are American productions and rightly or wrongly I suppose they choose actors who will attract audiences. I'm sure more effort would be made if we actually knew what Jesus looked like, but we don't. It was 2,000 years ago. We do know what Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I looked like.

Oh dear I mean we never watch American productions in England and of course we'd never utter a word of criticism about them.

Be honest you couldn't care less if a white man plays Jesus, no worries about respect and we certainly know that he didn't look like Ewan McGregor.

I wonder if there is anyone on here who has complained about Anne Boleyn being played by a black woman who has uttered a word about a biblical film with a white Jesus?

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I only tuned in out of curiosity after all the controversy, as quality C5 dramas are as rare as hens’ teeth in my opinion. It turns out that the casting was the only interesting thing about it.

There are so many black history stories just waiting to be told. Surely black actors would rather be telling them instead of being dragged into something as stodgy and hackneyed as this.

I'm all for it - and for women taking male roles.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Whatdayisit

Come on Chestnut we know who Jesus certainly didn't look like.
Anyway tonight is the night.

No, actually we have no idea what he looked like.

Apparently it was dull and historically inaccurate, well what a surprise, not.

I think some historical accuracy is important to the story and the question of Anne's innocence. One major point is that she was seldom ever alone (unlike this one) which made her opportunity for adultery very slight and is one of the reasons her brother was charged and her minstrel Mark Smeaton who were among the few men she saw alone.

Maggiemaybe

I only tuned in out of curiosity after all the controversy, as quality C5 dramas are as rare as hens’ teeth in my opinion. It turns out that the casting was the only interesting thing about it.

There are so many black history stories just waiting to be told. Surely black actors would rather be telling them instead of being dragged into something as stodgy and hackneyed as this.

That would be a definite watch for me, we are not that much aware of most black history, a series about Mary Seacole, Olaudah Equiano, Mary Prince, and so many others, stories waiting to be told. Would enlighten many . Instead script writers are lazy , would rather rehash something that we all know.

Lemongrove
We know he would have looked like a Jewish Galilean man living in Palestine in the First Century because that is what he historically was.
We know he didn't look like a white 20th Century British man.

I didn't watch it, not because the actress playing Ann Boleyn is black, but because I'm bored stiff with Henry VIII they've been doing dramas about him and the Tudor period forever

We did have other monarchs although you'd never think so from a drama point of view.

Doodledog I was interested by your comment that "As has been said, this is a drama, not a history lesson. Using the bones of one story to tell another one is a perfectly valid literary device."
Doesn't that depends on who is watching and why that person is watching? Surely I'm not the only one who watches historical "drama" on TV and hopes to learn about history; as opposed to sharing the artistic spin that a contemporary writer puts on "the bones".

I never watch historical drama and expect to learn more about the facts of history. It's drama set in the past, as far as I'm concerned, so should never been taken as historically accurate.

DH and I watched the new Anne Boleyn but we didn't like it much, it was a bit ponderous and I got fixated on what the clock represented! But we remembered how much we enjoyed the historically-inaccurate The Tudors. The episode where Anne goes to her death is amazingly well acted.

AcornFairy

Doodledog I was interested by your comment that "As has been said, this is a drama, not a history lesson. Using the bones of one story to tell another one is a perfectly valid literary device."
Doesn't that depends on who is watching and why that person is watching? Surely I'm not the only one who watches historical "drama" on TV and hopes to learn about history; as opposed to sharing the artistic spin that a contemporary writer puts on "the bones".

Yes, I take your point, but there are things like the History Channel, or documentaries on BBC (and elsewhere) for people wanting factual information. Even then, though, there are differences in what they say, because historians have different views about what happened and why. If they didn't, there would be one definitive book of history and that would be that.

Any drama set 500 years ago is going to be largely fictional anyway.

I watched the first episode, won't be watching again - what a load of codswallop. I feel sorry for that beautiful girl being put under the microscope for playing Anne Boleyn and having to contend with such an appallingly clunky script. Calling for the peacocks to be shot? There were only cannons available in that era, so whilst I don't expect total historical accuracy in a period drama I do expect the writers/researchers to have done their job properly.

I have to agree that the script was very clunky at times. Anne would certainly not have been roaming about on her own so much, Henry liked to have all his wives watched at all times. He would never have been left in bed on his own after his fall. The panic caused by the possibility of him dying would have meant half the court would have been there along with Cranmer and assorted doctors. Have we seen Cranmer at all yet?

There must be many black actors who could have fulfilled other roles in this production.Why stop at the main character?

Daisend1

There must be many black actors who could have fulfilled other roles in this production.Why stop at the main character?

Absolutely agree.