An the advice of jesuswasbatman, I ordered Howard Brenton's new play Anne Boleyn, since I can't travel to England and watch it myself. I'd like to; it's an interesting play, though I'm not completely sure the use of two time frames - Anne's story on the one hand, James VI and I directly after his ascension to the throne of England on the other - works or is really necessary. Not that the James scenes are boring. In fact, it's a take on the character I found convincing, best encapsulated in Robert Cecil going from facepalming at the thought he made this boorish fool king of England to realizing, hang on, he's actually really bright and underestimated at one's peril. George Villiers (the future Duke of Buckingham) showing up as James' new boyfriend had me going "hang on, I thought he and James didn't become an item until much later in James' reign, especially seeing as he managed to become pals with James' son Charles I as well" and then handwaving it; the identity of the boyfriend isn't the point, he shows up mostly to showcase James' way of handling both his relationships and his sexuality. Anyway, it's not that I don't see the red thread - James and his order to translate the bible concluding what Anne and her patronage of William Tyndale started - and it's an alternative to the way other depictions of Anne's life give her a postumous victory (i.e. by pointing out her daughter becomes queen) - but I still think the Anne parts of the play would have been self sufficient without this. Maybe seeing it performed would have made a difference, of course.

In his preface, Brenton talks about the various interpretations of Anne both in fictional and in non-fictional work (i.e. David Starkey versus Antonia Fraser versus The Tudors versus Wolf Hall); his own is of Anne as a sincere Protestant who, as opposed to seeing Protestant theologians as convenient supporters in order to become queen, sees her relationship with Henry and becoming queen as a convenient way to get the English reformation going. (Though she also comes to love him.) ("It is as if there was a Joan of Arc, driven by a religious vision, within the more familiar figure of Anne the dazzling sexual predator.") Her one time ally in this, Thomas Cromwell, turning against her is caused by her discovery that he was stealing huge sums of money from the dissolution of the monasteries which was supposed to go to universities and schools. Actually, I don't think this is completely new; as far as I recall, historians during Elizabeth's reign solved the conundrum of how to present the mother of the current queen without making her father look bad for executing her or to adher to the post-execution vilification of her by emphasizing her involvement with the Protestant theologians of her day and describing her as a Protestant martyr, brought down by counsellors who lied to the king about her, and playing down her sexuality. In his play, Brenton goes for a more modern version of this: his Anne is flirtatious, ambitious and certainly has a temper ("I just wish the bitch would piss off to a convent", re: Katherine of Aragon), but is utterly sincere about her Protestant agenda. Her two encounters with William Tyndale are highlights of the play, with the second one devastating to her as his conscience doesn't allow him to support her ("Against what the world says, I think you have Christ within you. But the King must take back his true wife"). Near as powerful are the scenes between Anne and Thomas Cromwell. (I didn't think that much of The Tudors, but they had some interesting UST between these two, and I think Brenton uses that as well, at least from Cromwell's side.) Because Brenton omits the breakdown of Henry's and Anne's relationship after Elizabeth's birth (we basically go from said birth to Anne's second stillbirth, where Henry still reacts more sensitively than history reports; and then he does not show up on stage again), his Henry VIII. is near exclusively a besotted lover, with the darker sides non-apparant, and not as important a character on stage as Cromwell, Tyndale and Wolsey. It's an unusual choice, but makes for a different persective. Also unusual - in fact, not used in any fictional presentation of Anne Boleyn's story I've read or seen - is making her sister-in-law, Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford, her friend and supporter who basically gets bullied, blackmailed and scared by Cromwell into turning against her, instead of giving Lady Rochford her usual motivation of jealousy (and a score to settle with her neglectful husband George). Given that Lady Rochford years later, when she was about to be executed in the context of Katherine Howard's trial, confessed that her incest accusation against George and Anne had been false and was caused by jealousy, and that this was years after the fall and death of Thomas Cromwell (meaning she could have safely blamed him), I don't think it holds up historically, but in the context of the play I find it appealing because the friendship between Anne and her is actually quite touching.

Now, plays about centuries old people can take liberties as much as they want without this feeling intrusive or the reader/watcher feeling voyeuristic, because in most cases, time really makes a difference. It's a bit more tricky for me with current day cases, but I'm not always able to resist, and at any rate sometimes amused and sometimes appalled and sometimes in agreement when I, say, check out fandomsecrets and see what other people come up with.

( Sighted: Elizabeth/Tony, Yoko/Paul zomg )