Anne of the Thousand Days (1969)

Anne of the Thousand Days, a 1969 nominee for Best Picture, details the attempts by Henry VIII (played by Richard Burton) to obtain the affections of Anne Boleyn (played by Genevieve Bujold), despite still being married to Katharine of Aragon (played by the inestimable Irene Papas). This movie works well as a costume drama; there seemed to be a lot of those during the 1960s, and most of them were heavily British in influence and/or execution. This lavish film is no exception.

Interestingly, the film covers much of the same territory as The Tudors, the television series currently on Showtime for its second season. All of the palace intrigue is there, as are Henry's famous temper and Anne's flirtatious personality. Even the portrayal of Queen Katharine is similar, making her to be almost saintly in her devotion to a man who clearly no longer loves her. The great difference, of course, is in the portrayal of Henry. Here, the king is played by Burton as a man closer in age to the historical figure. In the Showtime series, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers plays Henry more as randy younger fellow dedicated to getting his way and acting out of a sense of entitlement. While I'm all in favor of historical accuracy, who wouldn't rather see Rhys-Meyers nude or semi-nude? Still, Anne of the Thousand Days presents the story in fascinating detail. The costumes and sets are all spectacular, and the acting is, for the most part, uniformly good. (Watch Anthony Quayle as Cardinal Wolsey, for example, as he manages to use both facial expression and elaborate costume to convey what he's feeling.)

I do have one problem with this film's representation of history, and that's with its depiction of Thomas Cromwell, the king's lawyer. If you believed this film, you'd think that Cromwell was responsible for all of the "bad" (at least, damaging) decisions that Henry made with respect to Anne and Katharine and the Church. He's portrayed as truly evil, not an unusual characterization for a lawyer, to be certain, but not one that history fully bears out. I suppose each film deserves a villain, and this movie, in trying to keep the focus much of the time on the love story, has made Cromwell into that figure.

Similarly, the film spends much time on the courtship of Anne that Henry undertakes but little on the aftermath of the relationship. It is relatively late in the film when they wed and she is presented as queen. However, after giving birth to Elizabeth, Bujold's Anne must face the coldness of heart that Henry's all-consuming desire for a male heir brings. It does seem that he changes his disposition too quickly and diverts his attentions to Jane Seymour (the future queen, not Dr. Quinn) too rapidly. Undoubtedly, the birth of another daughter was quite a blow to Henry, but the film might have benefited from more time on what led the king to abandon the woman for whom he had so long fought and for whom he severed ties with the Catholic Church.

Still, I enjoyed this film because it represents one of those movies that on one level is such a product of its time period. The late 1960s saw more women become involved in the movement for equality, and Bujold's queen is a clear reflection of that attitude. The film depicts Henry in all his male chauvinist posturing, and Bujold's speeches to him sound so much a part of the women's movement. (Listen to her discussion of her daughter Elizabeth's future reign as an example.) I had a similar reaction years ago when I saw the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet. That film is a testament to the influence of the hippies, yet the filmmakers managed to keep it very faithful to Shakespeare's original text. Similarly, Anne of the Thousand Days reminds us both of what we've learned of Henry VIII and his six wives (well, three of them anyway) and reflects the era of its making.