Do We Ever See Why Henry Loved Anne?
-
peggygeordie — 10 years ago(April 28, 2015 05:40 PM)
I agree. Her looks don't matter but she was supposed to have great wit and charm, of which we have seen nothing - just petulance and hostility to almost everyone. She doesn't even seem to bother with charming Henry.
We have also seem nothing about her genuine desire to advance the Protestant cause.
She's been the weak link in the show because it's inconceivable that - as portrayed - she could gain as much power over Henry as she did, especially when he is portrayed as intelligent and we see nothing of that in her tantrums and constant flouncing out of the room. -
OnlyAnOrdinaryGirl — 10 years ago(May 02, 2015 11:30 AM)
Hey, peggygeordie.
I agree. Her looks don't matter but she was supposed to have great wit and charm, of which we have seen nothing - just petulance and hostility to almost everyone. She doesn't even seem to bother with charming Henry.
Exactly. Why would a king who can really have anyone he wants even look twice at her? Why would she even have the opportunity to turn him down?
We have also seem nothing about her genuine desire to advance the Protestant cause.
This was one of my very favorite things about
The Tudors
. I can't remember another portrayal of Anne Boleyn where this aspect of her character was given any air time. She also had a falling out with Thomas Cromwell regarding where the money from the dissolution of the monasteries should go - Cromwell wanted them to go to the Crown to be dispensed as patronage to shore up support for the dynasty, while Anne wanted the money to go for education and the support of the poor and didn't support wholesale dissolution. I love the line in
The Tudors
regarding Henry, "He fell in love with
me
. He respected
me
, and my opinions."
She's been the weak link in the show because it's inconceivable that - as portrayed - she could gain as much power over Henry as she did, especially when he is portrayed as intelligent and we see nothing of that in her tantrums and constant flouncing out of the room.
I'm assuming that's how the character is portrayed in the book. I haven't read it.
Of all sad words of mouth or pen, the saddest are these: it might have been. - J G Whittier -
Raysand — 10 years ago(April 29, 2015 05:35 AM)
I know what you are trying to get at, but perhaps in real life Anne had no redeeming values other than a flirtatious, pretty face that knew how to ensnare men with her allure. The actress who plays Anne is very beautiful and many men don't care how shallow, and unlikeable a woman is as long as she's beautiful. We know from the history that Henry wants a son and Anne had promised him one, we also know from looking at her as portrayed in the series that she's beautiful. Do we need to know the mental intricacies then? Perhaps there were none other than a very pretty, flirtatious, witty woman playing hard to get on one side and on the other, a capricious, megalomaniac accustomed to getting whatever he wanted come what may and then to complete the sick cycle enablers like the despicable Cromwell being able to read the mind of his master and anticipating his every move.
-
OnlyAnOrdinaryGirl — 10 years ago(May 02, 2015 11:33 AM)
I don't agree, but I'm glad you are happy with the portrayal. And I'm serious, not trying to sound snarky (I know it's hard to get that across sometimes in text).
Of all sad words of mouth or pen, the saddest are these: it might have been. - J G Whittier -
Moss_Garden — 10 years ago(April 24, 2015 08:21 AM)
The interesting thing about this show (and book) and the portrayal of Henry, Anne, their relationship, and all the rest, is that it's entirely through Cromwell's perspective. Cromwell wasn't there to see the beginning of their courtship, he likely didn't witness many (or any) of Henry and Anne's intimate moments. He wasn't part of the inner circle that was invited to socialize with them. He dealt with matters of business, and in this show he only ever seems to see Anne when she summons him for a specific reason. So what we see is the cold, calculating, ambitious side of Anne and how Cromwell perceives her - as an enemy or an ally.
Formerly Nothin_but_the_Rain -
OnlyAnOrdinaryGirl — 10 years ago(May 02, 2015 11:37 AM)
But Cromwell was a "creature" of the Boleyns. Anne Boleyn used charm even on Wolsey to get her way. I can't see her just being unrelievedly petulant for no reason to a man like Cromwell who can help her. I also can't imagine Cromwell not witnessing how much Henry was smitten with Anne when even Chapuys commented on their ups and downs, fights and passionate make-up PDA. They weren't circumspect in their relationship.
Of all sad words of mouth or pen, the saddest are these: it might have been. - J G Whittier -
rideyourgreenbike — 10 years ago(April 25, 2015 09:39 AM)
I enjoyed the series as a whole. But Clare Foy's portrayal of Anne Boleyn was totally charmless and irritating. The interactions between Henry and Anne were equally puzzling. I am not sure whether this was a casting issue, or the director's miscalculation.
-
maggimae83 — 10 years ago(April 29, 2015 06:47 AM)
I agree that the casting is part of the problem, however, Henry's main motivation is to get rid of Katherine and find a wife who can provide him with a male heir. It's a pity that he, or his minions did not do their research regarding Anne's character.
maggimae83 -
Mildred_Fierce — 10 years ago(April 29, 2015 04:14 PM)
I think it became a battle of wills and Henry believed most of all that he had absolute power and could do whatever he wanted. It could have been another woman. He was intent on having a male heir and Anne was a woman that he desired, more than loved. He couldn't have her as a mistress and couldn't marry her so he revolted against Rome because he wanted to have his way. If it had been a great love he wouldn't have sent her to the tower.
-
FeydRautha — 10 years ago(May 01, 2015 01:53 AM)
Many people on this thread are wondering how Henry could fall in love with such a spoilt, nasty, petulant brat. I've had friends (most usually guys) who fall in love with absolute ball-breakers who practically lead them around on a leash and are openly rude to his friends. But the guy can't explain why he's so taken with this woman, it must be love.
I think Claire Foy's doing a fine job, she's just portraying Anne differently from what we've seen before. It could be a director's suggestion.
And, getting back to the question in the thread title, my high school History teacher gave us the impression that Henry was thinking with his "Little Henry" when he fell for Anne. She certainly crooked him into marriage by A) not jumping into bed with him when he first expressed his interest and B) hinted at her fertility. He desperately wanted a male heir.
DAD!! Tom Cruise won't come out of the closet!!! -
OnlyAnOrdinaryGirl — 10 years ago(May 02, 2015 11:42 AM)
I've had friends (most usually guys) who fall in love with absolute ball-breakers who practically lead them around on a leash and are openly rude to his friends. But the guy can't explain why he's so taken with this woman, it must be love.
I've heard of this but I've never seen it in action, certainly not for a decade-long relationship.
I think Claire Foy's doing a fine job, she's just portraying Anne differently from what we've seen before. It could be a director's suggestion.
I'm not casting aspersions on the actress; I assume that this is the way the character is written in the book.
And, getting back to the question in the thread title, my high school History teacher gave us the impression that Henry was thinking with his "Little Henry" when he fell for Anne. She certainly crooked him into marriage by A) not jumping into bed with him when he first expressed his interest and B) hinted at her fertility. He desperately wanted a male heir.
That's the thing, though. This Anne displays no qualities that would make Henry's little henry stand up and take notice. I'm not talking physical appearance. She just isn't intriguing at all, just caustic.
Of all sad words of mouth or pen, the saddest are these: it might have been. - J G Whittier -
angelosdaughter — 10 years ago(May 11, 2015 09:53 PM)
Anne's attractions aside from the physical are not really indicated in this series, but, judging from descriptions of her Anne was:
*Fresh from France, with the manners and bearing of the foreign court, therefore somewhat exotic.
*Relatively young, and loving some of the same activities as the King: dancing, flirting, the conventions of courtly love, and card playing. Katharine was beyond childbearing age, and comparatively serious.
*Of an age where childbearing was still a possibility
*Not an easy conquest, therefore a challenge
However, once he had married Anne, she became someone with a mind of her own, not afraid to argue with Henry. One source says she even brought the King to tears on one occasion. She also became extremely arrogant, in time with her insistence on the recognition she considered her due, costing the besotted king valuable friends and counselors such as More and Wolsey;
Henry had been used to the quiet, wise, pious, well-educated and submissive Katharine whose counsel he sought and respected.
Anne was everything he loved in a flirtation and detested once she became his wife. If Anne had produced the promised son, Henry would probably have overlooked the rest and she would have remained Queen even though she, as had Katharine before her, would have had to look the other way at his affairs.
His third marriage would be to a woman, Jane Seymour, who although to us seems to have had few attractions, was quiet, self-effacing, serious, had no sexual history, and was obedient to Henry's will that she not meddle in politics. Her motto, 'Bound to obey and serve' was similar to Katharine's "Humble and loyal" and as unlike two known to be Anne's 'Grumble who grumbles, that is the way it will be' and "The Happiest of Women." as could be. Jane also had the virtue of producing the long hoped-for son, and dying before Henry could fall out of love with her. In time he would refer to Jane as his true wife, and would elect to be buried at her side.
I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon. -
LeofricsBeloved — 10 years ago(March 17, 2016 02:33 PM)
Anne knew how to manipulate Henry's infatuation with her so well that he made her Queen even though he already had a Queen, the Pope, and their supporters to contend with.
They did have to show how Anne was so intolerable than even a man who supposedly loved her would want her dead.
transcendcinema.blogspot.com "Mind over matter; if you don't mind, it doesn't matter." Room -
nkanalley — 10 years ago(March 28, 2016 10:07 PM)
In the series, Anne is portrayed exactly as Mantel wrote her in the trilogy; she is fresh from France, speaks with an affected French accent at times, is supremely self-satisfied, and utterly unsurprised that the world is being turned upside down on her behalf. As Cromwell muses to himself after Anne's last plea with him (when she evokes the tapestry of Queen Esther that Henry gave him, with her hands placed delicately around her throat in an affected pose of pleading), he realizes that "from the time she was eleven years old, Anne Boleyn has never done anything that was not of immediate benefit to herself". She is supremely cynical, sociopathic, and maninuplative. She does not love Henry, but really, really wants to be Queen, and affects an interest in the burgeoning Reformation in Europe to get her way. Cromwell is at first intrigued by her power and self-determination. He respects her, but doesn't like her. At the last, he realizes (or brings himself to realize) what an utter fraud she is. He really does believe that, had he not contrived her death, she would have eventually contrived to put him, Princess Mary, and Queen Katherine together on the block. He also holds her ultimately responsible for the death of Wolsey, along with Brereton, Weston, Norris, and George Boleyn.
In real life, Anne Boleyn was a phenomenal power-player, but there really isn't anything to back up the romantic Victorian image of the "tragic queen who died for love". The story that Anne kept a bible in English on a lectern in her chamber is an Elizabethan fabrication. She may well have quarreled with Cromwell over the use of the monastic funds, but that could just as easily have been a power struggle over who Henry was most likely to listen to, rather than any genuine interest on her part to convert the funds to better uses. Anne Boleyn was a fascinating woman, but in the end here is nothing romantic or tragic about her. As David Starkey has said, "no other woman had ever done what she did before. One would not have expected her to die in her bed." -
austendw — 9 years ago(April 07, 2016 11:22 AM)
I'm not sure Mantell wrote her as charmless, petty and a little dim, however. And I'm afraid that's how I found Anne in this production. I couldn't see how this pouting, petulant woman could ever have managed to beguile the king, and she really didn't seem to have the intelligence or strength of character to wield the power she did (at least for a time). I may be in the minority - others thought Claire Foy was perfect in the role. I thought she was inert.
While it is invidious to compare performances, Lydia Leonard, who played Anne Boleyn on stage in Stratford, London, and New York was in a different league: She plausibly embodied all the qualities you mention. One could actually understand why Henry might once have been charmed by her, even be a little intimidated by her. One felt how ruthless, shrewd and dangerous she could be - she posed a real threat to Cromwell.
But then, for all his abilities as an actor, which are immense, I thought that Mark Rylance was miscast entirely, and he came across as far too ruminative, cerebral and sensitive. Nothing like the driven, workaholic, political action-man of Mantel's novel. I never for an instant felt the dangerousness of the character - despite the memento when he draws the knife in the scene with Mary Boleyn. The script went a good way to encouraging this softer version - they cut the scene where he draws his knife on Wolsey, an edgy moment in the novel that establishes his suppressed violence; they remove the character of Christophe Cromwell's henchman - the darker, more brutal henchman. And the final scene, with it's presentation of Cromwell as a sort of innocent fly caught in the web of the wicked spider king was actually a serious weakening of even Mantel's sympathetic version of the character.
Call me Ishmael -
LeofricsBeloved — 9 years ago(April 18, 2016 12:31 AM)
But then, for all his abilities as an actor, which are immense, I thought that Mark Rylance was miscast entirely, and he came across as far too ruminative, cerebral and sensitive. Nothing like the driven, workaholic, political action-man of Mantel's novel. I never for an instant felt the dangerousness of the character - despite the memento when he draws the knife in the scene with Mary Boleyn. The script went a good way to encouraging this softer version - they cut the scene where he draws his knife on Wolsey, an edgy moment in the novel that establishes his suppressed violence; they remove the character of Christophe Cromwell's henchman - the darker, more brutal henchman. And the final scene, with it's presentation of Cromwell as a sort of innocent fly caught in the web of the wicked spider king was actually a serious weakening of even Mantel's sympathetic version of the character.
Very interesting. I have not read Mantel's novel and I probably won't. It may be true that Mark's portrayal is too "ruminative, cerebral, and sensitive" compared to Mantel's interpretation of Cromwell.
This is difficult material to handle, especially since Cromwell is a complex character. The directors and writers probably had a hard time making him sympathetic if they literally followed Mantel's interpretation. Many novels and storylines don't successfully translate well to the screen, and it is up to the creative decision and artistic license of directors/writers to make it work on the screen.
Mark's portrayal was that of restraint which hid much more suppressed violence than actual violence. Flashbacks were the only way to see what was through his mind. I don't think he was portrayed as an innocent fly towards the end of the Season 1. He certainly enjoyed destroying his enemies and really did sink to the wicked level of his opponent. But I do think the director made his descent plausible.
Mark brought a poetry and suppressed rage to his role in the way a true artist does - he created a new, original character that came to life in a manner in which perhaps neither Mantel or the directors anticipated. I think his interpretation made the show much more powerful than if it were played by someone else who followed the character as portrayed by Mantel.