Kathleen Goes To the Movies

Oh, no! It's my day! And I'm late, late, late!

Fortunately, I've been thinking and chatting with a friend about my next blog, so when I opened up today to RWTTD ready to sink my teeth into something delicious from another Rider and saw Helen's announcement, and I knew, I KNEW I should have checked the schedule, well, all was not lost. My brain was not totally blank. See, I had a book released just this week, and that event has a way of mushing up the gray matter. The book is MYSTIC HORSEMAN, and everything you might want to know about it can be found on my web site. And we've got our own little bookshop right here in the convertible, in case you feel like ordering.

But I've been to the movies lately, and I have two flicks to throw out for discussion. You know how much I love the big, sweeping costume saga. I've been devouring the Tudor period recently, so daughter Elizabeth and I took in "The Other Boleyn Girl." Nice costumes, pretty landscapes, lavish and moody interiors. But I do like a bit of history with my sagas. I know this was based on a piece of historical fiction, and they call it fiction for a reason, but come on. There was a lot more to Henry than skirt chasing and a lot more to Anne than sibling rivalry. There was big stuff going on, and most of it had to do with lining up a male heir. You can't get away with reducing the Boleyn story to soapsuds. Sorry. Jonathan Rys Myers ("The Tudors") makes a better Henry than Eric Bana(?) (shown here) but neither compares to Richard Burton. (Don't laugh, kids. Burton was young once, too.) I'm fascinated by this period of history, and I insist that any story we create about it now should speak at least a tiny bit about what was behind all the intrigue--the concern for transition of power after generations of civil war, the beginnings of separation of Church and State, little stuff like that. It doesn't have to be a big history lesson, but don't play dumb. The Tudor saga can't be set in Dallas--Anne ain't Sue Ellen, and Henry's no JR. (Don't laugh, kids. I know the reference is so 20th century, but I'm in a hurry. Update for me. Give me another show.)

On to "Goya's Ghosts," new on DVD. Yes, Natalie Portman again. And, yes, that's the fabulous and now famous Javier Bardem. He's terrific in this one, too. Oddly, Goya is played by a Swedish actor and Randy Quaid plays the king of Spain. But it works. Trust me. The film got mixed reviews--mostly on the down side--but I found it interesting. Interesting period--last gasp of the Inquisition, a bit of slop-over from the French Revolution, topped with a visit from Napoleon and his brother. The whole thing plays out through Goya's viewpoint. He's just trying to make a living here. Portman is an innocent merchant's daughter who models for Goya. Bardem is a monk who gets himself appointed Grand Inquisitor and has Portman's character arrested. Goya is pivotal because he knows all the principles. He's the best portrait artist in Spain--has connections in court. But he's sensitive to the issues of the day and the plight of the common people, as his charcoal sketches--sold in shops all over Europe--clearly show. I suspect there were historical liberties taken in this one, too, but the commentary on torture is surely timely. (No, you don't have to suffer too much pain. Just enough to get the idea.)

Whatever liberties might have been taken in the name of art on this one, this climactic scene from the film (left) certainly mirrors the mood in Goya's sketch (right).

Are you a historical movie fan? Have you seen any good (or bad) ones lately? What do you expect from them? Are there some actors who really shine in historical roles and some who just don't work? (No, kidding, Randy Quaid will surprise you.)