Everyone knows the story of Henry VIII and his six wives. Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived. So, two of them (Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard) are killed at Henry’s command. So far we’re on track. Now what if I was to ask you which wife was responsible for killing Henry? And I mean physically responsible.
This may seem like a pointless query. It is an absurd question that does not have an answer simply because it never happened.
Unless you are Karim Aïnouz, or any of the team behind the recent film, ‘Firebrand’. Then all historical fact is completely thrown out the window.
There is no point beating around the bush, they get Katherine Parr to suffocate Henry to death! They seem to say, let’s rewrite history, let’s completely make up how someone died. And not just anyone, but the most famous king in English history. This significant deviation from historical fact feels unjustified and undermines the film’s credibility. How can we allow a historical episode of this magnitude to be twisted and warped? This seems to prioritise creative liberty over historical integrity. Now, I get subtle changes and minor inaccuracies, this is after all a film, not a history documentary. However, this misstep is difficult to overlook, it detracts from what could have been an otherwise well-executed film.
There is no point beating around the bush, they get Katherine Parr to suffocate Henry to death! Let’s just rewrite history, let’s completely make up how someone died.
Up until the horror ending, I had a good time with this. I especially liked the revisionist approach and the promotion of Katherine Parr as the central character. She is brilliantly portrayed as Alicia Vikander, a clever, cunning, and caring woman, a depiction I am glad is recognised. However, this does not justify the decision to have her murder Henry, which I can only assume is meant to be a representation of her liberation and dominance over him but is wrong – as I have previously emphasised.
Jude Law is fantastic. The appearance and physicality of Henry are well portrayed, and Law excels in his mannerisms and speech. I would have perhaps liked to have seen more anger from Henry, but I understand that Henry was likely to have been played down to lift Katherine and have her in the spotlight, so it is not a big concern.
I also think Henry’s children shine, especially Elizabeth, whose bond with Katherine is lovely to watch, and whose strong will and determination (characteristics that will be associated with her reign) start to develop.
The depiction of court intrigue and the promotion and hunting of secret Protestant plots are also well demonstrated, particularly in the scenes with Erin Doherty as Anne Askew, who shines in her role.
But ultimately, the film is tainted by a real dark point at its conclusion. It is troubling that the creative team deemed it acceptable to alter significant moments in history, and I hope this is not the future direction of historical cinema.
