The Orphanage ~~ ½

Without any knowledge, other than this being a ‘little horror film', I was pleasantly surprised by this Spanish story of mystery, love and longing. Firstly, I would say that this is not a horror film rather, this is a story of a couple and their little boy and the past which comes back to haunt them. The family move back into the old orphanage in which the mother Laura grew up in. Their adopted son, unknowing of his own heritage, is ill but lives in blissful ignorance playing happily with his imaginary friends. All seems well on the surface until one day, whilst on a walk to the local coastal caves, the little boy ‘meets’ a new imaginary friend. Laura is understandably concerned about this childish indulgence but resolves to encourage her son to seek friendship with the forthcoming children to their new foster home.

Whilst this story takes a while to unravel, the slow pace and the unassuming action does take hold of you. And by the time it does, things begin to get going. A mysterious woman appears at their home and clues as to the strange noises and little boys actions start to make sense. There is a great sense of unknown being played upon and children’s games point to the answers.

Things take an unfortunate turn for the family when the little boy goes missing. The parents, distraught and confused, turn to the police and then mystics. The history of the house and the children within is explored until Laura takes matters in to her own hands. Ultimately, she uncovers the truth of the situation and when she does, I’ll put money on the fact that a lump will appear in your throat!

The story, whilst believable to a point, takes an unexpected turn but the film makers aid you all the way. In a marvellous twist to the proceedings, what you see is what you get. The novelty of being presented with the whole truth in a film is rather wonderful. No tricks, no red herrings. And whilst the film gives insight into the Spanish sense of melancholy is seems to present a refreshing portrayal of mortality and love. An interesting rather than brilliant film, all the elements (cast, scenery, script etc) hold very well together resulting in a touching and interesting take on the haunted house genre of film. Not bad at all.

The Other Boleyn Girl ~~~

This is an interesting little film. More a fantastic TV series in whole, which isn’t to debase it at all but rather to attempt to put it into the right context of scope. It’s a fascinating portrayal of the Boleyn girls and their ambitious family in the court of Henry VIII. I think my reaction to the actual film itself is based more on the fact that I’m quite a Tudor history enthusiast, and therefore look to find detail of other characters other than those already famous and infamous, rather than to the fact that the film is quite unassuming. Familiarity breeds contempt so to speak.

And whilst this slice of historic life differs greatly to the one portrayed, for example, in the recent BBC series aptly titled ‘The Tudors’, beginning with the King’s obsession with Anne of the brood, doing little to include the relationship he had with her sister Mary, this film (from the recent ‘historic’ book) does go some way in extrapolating actual history whilst showing a slightly less ‘romantic’ view life in the royal household.

All the pieces fit together. The cast is great – Natalie Portman is Anne, the spirited daughter placed by her uncle and father to catch the King, Scarlett Johansson is Mary, the dutiful and respectful daughter caught up in the game whilst Eric Banner plays the King on the cusp of middle-age and infamous endeavour. Kristen Scott Thomas plays the mother of the girls and one of the only moral voices throughout the whole dubious proceedings. It is to her the audience looks once the actions of the men of the family begin to unravel and place the entire Boleyn clan in peril. Thomas’ performance was possibly the best of the collection. Both Portman and Johansson perform admirably with possibly the best English accents from our stateside cousins since either Gillian Anderson in ‘Bleak House’ or, dare I say it, Zellweger as Bridget Jones. Unfortunately, Banner wasn’t given enough screen time to make any real impact and maybe rightly so. It is not his story here.

What is interesting about this story is that what is presented gives possibly the truest depiction of politics and the role of high-class women in the 17^th century. Think one big game. The women are undoubtedly the pawns and when applicable, also the porn. If you can’t produce a male heir, don’t even think about it. Queen Katherine hasn’t a chance in hell and everyone at court knows it. It might be that those with only a smidge of knowledge of that period of history feel the film offers a little more, the bonus attraction being in the guessing of what will happen to Anne and Mary. But for those in the know, it might prove to be a little disappointing, as it was for me.

It goes without saying that the sets and costumes were wonderful and I’ll even admit that the script wasn’t too bad. The musical score was appropriate, if a little OTT on occasion, and the remaining cast was very good. Something was missing though and I can’t quite put my finger on it. Certainly no ‘Elizabeth’, this was a more humble portrayal, a more ‘human’ approach to the telling of a story which will certainly outlive us all. The feminist approach was more than successful and it left me thinking just how far we have got since the days when women were subjugated and used primarily for their physical capabilities in ensuring the family name be carried on. The point made at the end of the film, after all the death, violence and furtive behaviour, that Henry was survived by his daughters’ Mary and Elizabeth, who both went on to become such influential and capable monarchs, rather than his only legitimate son Edward does go some way in supporting the idea that all that effort in finding the perfect breeding partner to produce a male heir, on the part of all the men in the story, was totally wasted. Just goes to show.