It would be good to say Firebrand (2024) led to a heated discussion, but we all agreed. Jude Law shone as Henry VIII, the best portrayal of the King we’d seen on film. However, the realistic and disturbing depiction of the King’s legs – possibly an alternative title for the film could be Pus in Boots – led to a few of the audience legging it themselves.
The elephant in the room, or the heliport in the roof, were the completely disastrous auto-generated subtitles. Proudly and boldly white against the dark gloomy setting, they trashed every scene. Any deaf visitor would have been extremely confused. Why did King Henry ask Catherine Parr, “Do you love Wicked?”
Our discussion group discussed things like accuracy of the story. A historian who came for the first time was riled that Haddon Hall (or Haddock Ball as the subtitles might have suggested) was used instead of Whitehall Palace as a setting. She was angry that the filmmakers changed history and it shouldn’t be allowed. We did have a talk about Firebrand being ‘historical fiction’ which gave carte blanche for the filmmakers to change everything.
We wondered if any non-historian knew who Anne Askew was as the theological issues of the time weren’t clarified. Catherine Parr (Alicia Vikander) was a very interesting and powerful figure in history, intelligent, a writer, mentor and example to future monarchs Edward VI and Elizabeth I. However, the film didn’t convey this and we yearned for more character development. We felt we didn’t know her.
This was a two star film, said one of the discussion group and no-one disagreed. The costumes were great, the brooding dark atmosphere splendid. The sound of a creaking bed was celebrated. It was the best role for a parrot since Monty Python’s Flying Circus and some anachronistic spaniels ticked the cute box. But otherwise, we weren’t too happy.
Anne.
Thanks for your lively words. Yes, the film was askew in some ways. Sorry everyone, I know the film was 2023 but I can't be ***ed to change it. Although we did see Henry's ****, of course.
Oh Anne, this is hilarious—Puss in Boots!! Yes!
I got home and read some of her writings, and I have to wonder—why, why, why did the filmmakers and directors fail to use her words? Her work truly shows her as the firebrand she was, yet they overlooked it. As Gordon Said, Anne Askew was really the Firebrand in the film.
I partly agree with the comments about historical accuracy. Yes, this is a work of fiction, so perhaps for die-hard historians, and "Haddon Ball," it would be helpful to acknowledge that at the beginning. I was also amazed when she kills him, so glad I did not go out and blast that to the world! Catherine Parr, being the on…