Lady Jane (1986)

Helen-Bonham Carter and Cary Elwes give fine performances in the lead roles. Also I think the portrayal of Mary I in this film was good. But despite some of the good performances, I found this movie not very pleasing.Having read several books on the historical Jane Grey, it is hard to honestly find good in this film despite its historic inaccuracies. But putting aside, when looking at this at a cinematic standpoint alone, I still find much about it I don't enjoy.The romance between the two leads, makes for what one would call a good "chick flick". However, I think most audience, regardless of gender, would find this display of the romance heavily mawkish. It is hard for me to relate to, and I am someone who usually enjoys romance in film.Outside of the two leads, the rest of the characters come off as very cardboard-like. And they seem to fit into two different camps: a) plotters/schemers (which no doubt, that kind of thing definitely went on in the Tudor court) and b) honorable people (but are kept at surface level).For as much cinematic liberties as this took. Some of these character (though usually historic) should've just been molded into one character to save on time for casting, and because it seemed excessive to have as many historic portrayals as they did all in one movie.I tried to find much good in this film, and I just couldn't. I'd recommend Tudor Rose (1936) aka. Nine Days a Queen, as the superior of these two films in presenting the story as well. Tudor Rose was an incredibly moving picture,and concise (unlike the needlessly lengthy runtime of Lady Jane) but with great performances all around by a solid 30's British cast. It wasn't as historically accurate either. But from a cinematic standpoint, I found Tudor Rose better than this film in terms of Jane Grey movies.

Trevor Nunn may be a great theatre director but he cannot make movies. Just why he decided to make this turkey, I cannot imagine. Given that the actual true story of Lady Jane Grey is a fascinating example of political intrigue in Tudor England, it is all the more inexplicable that Nunn opts for a Woman's Own version of the tale complete with syrupy music that lurches in style from faux 16th century to 1980s muzak.Historical accuracy goes out the window and suddenly the 15 year old Jane and her slightly older husband Guildford Dudley are transformed into young lovers cast in the 'Romeo & Juliet' mould. The pace is leaden, and at almost 2 and a half hours, the film is overly long. Beautiful photography and many historic locations aside, the best ingredient is the wonderful supporting cast drawn from some of the finest acting talent in the British Isles.Of course (as can be judged from most of the comments here) the Americans loved it and perhaps it was made for the US market? The recent, equally risible TV series THE TUDORS was made for America too - given that English history is not a strong point across the pond.It was a failure on release and Nunn has not made a major film since.Thank goodness!

Although this is lacking perhaps in historical accuracy it gives a fair documentation of Lady Jane Grey's life. If it essentially a love story of two ill-fated lovers caught up in the politics of Tudor England. Lady Jane (Bonham-Carter) is forced to marry Guildford Dudley (Elwes) as part of the Duke of Northumberland's plans to keep England protestant and make his son king. The two dislike each other immediately and wish to have nothing to do with each other. However, they slowly fall in love and find themselves kindred spirits. All too soon history catches them up and they are arrested and sentenced to death. Bonham Carter and Elwes are well cast as the young couple although occasionally it becomes a little over-sentimental. Queen Mary comes out well as a spinster reluctant to put her cousin to death but driven to it through her own wish for happiness. This is an enjoyable film to watch with a good cast but if you want facts I would suggest a documentary will better suit you.

I love these historical Tudor dramas, such as the earlier Mary Queen of Scots with Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson. However, I confess that I caught this one on television and missed a few parts. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert either on the history of its title character, nicknamed the Nine Days Queen, so am going somewhat by others' comments on the historical accuracy.The film chronicles the succession chaos following the death of Henry VIII. When the new king, Henry's sickly teenage son, Edward VI is dying, a scheming minister, John Dudley (Duke of Northumberland), concocts a scheme to ensure a Protestant succession by marrying off his own son, Guildford, to the young king's royal cousin, Lady Jane Grey, a devout Protestant. Lady Jane is merely a pawn forced by her parents to acquiesce to this arranged marriage and claim to the throne. Although at first she detests her new husband, as time passes, the couple fall passionately in love. However, all is not well. Henry VIII's daughter, Mary, claims the crown for herself and must therefore eliminate the young usurper, resulting in the execution of both Jane and Guildford.This is an interesting tale of Tudor court intrigue, with the period costumes, castles, and scenes all beautifully done.Helena Bonham Carter, a very young actress herself, brings a sympathetic portrayal of the 15 year old bookish, devout Lady Jane, coerced by her parents into an unwanted marriage. Also, this young queen's willingness to sacrifice her life rather than renounce her faith (if this is indeed historical) serves as an inspiration for us all. Patrick Stewart is particularly forceful (as always) in his role as Jane's domineering father, Henry Grey, who eventually springs to his daughter's defense by leading a rebellion on her behalf.My problem lies mainly with the historical accuracy. If there is no evidence of true love existing between Jane and Guildford Dudley, it isn't acceptable to simply concoct a sort of Romeo and Juliet type romance out of the story, in order to keep audiences entertained. Perhaps a bit of dramatic license is tolerable with historical figures, but not to this extent. I remember being quite touched by Jane's genuine friendship with her cousin, the sickly young King Edward, which is perhaps more historically based.Lady Jane's claim to the throne was indeed a weak one, and the crown went to Henry VIII's closer kin, his two daughters, first Mary and then Elizabeth. Mary was his older Catholic daughter by his divorced first wife, Katherine of Aragon. This tragic, much maligned figure, who came to be known as Bloody Mary, was poorly treated by both her father and her husband, Philip of Spain, with whom she failed to produce an heir. Elizabeth, Henry's younger Protestant daughter and offspring of his second wife (Anne Boleyn), enjoyed a long reign as Elizabeth I. Lady Jane Grey's story is indeed a tragic one, but she was merely Henry VIII's great niece, a much more distant relative than his daughters.