Tudor Rose

This film is a misfire, but it was hard to put my finger on why, at first. The acting is superb, led by Sir Cedric Hardwicke as the Duke of Northumberland, Nova Pilbeam as Jane Grey, a young John Mills as Guilford Dudley, and fine character actors such as Miles Malleson and John Laurie, to name but a few. The camera work and particularly the lighting make for many a striking composition. The music, however, though of adequate period flavour, is what pulls down all of the proceedings. It is simply too dull, too slow, and entirely out of sync with the tone of many scenes. A score by someone of the calibre of, say, Miklos Rozsa would have worked wonders with this picture! Or John Greenwood, Muir Mathieson, or any number of musicians who worked on British films in the 1930s. Alas...

Also, I was surprised at how patently ignored Lady Jane Grey's faith in Christ was. Only John Knox (played by Laurie) or those surrounding her execution make any mention of God or the Scriptures. This is one area that was more satisfactorily explored in the 1986 film "Lady Jane" (with Helena Bonham Carter playing the title role).

With all the talk of no history education in the schools in the United States, this film can be used to whet the appetite. When some of us older viewers will remember that great novels were turned into Classic Comics to teach the lazy about great written works, the movie studios were churning out historic films, frequently firming some biographies with fictional text. This film is excellent. For those parents who want to give a "sense of history to their children" they should rent or look for the following movies: YOUNG TOM EDISON, EDISON, THE MAN; ELEANOR, FIRST LADY OF THE WORLD; WILSON; ABE LINCOLN IN ILLINOIS; JUAREZ; SUEZ; DISRAELI; PANCHO VILLA; STANLEY AND LIVINGSTON; DR. EHRLICH'S MAGIC BULLET; HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD; CARDINAL RICHELIEU; THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR and TRUMAN as well as documentary films like THE GUNS OF AUGUST. TUDOR ROSE is a must see, the viewer should program IMDb to advise when these films are on television.

"Nine Days a Queen" is the story of how Jane Grey became, briefly, the queen of England. Considering she was not in line to become queen upon the death of her cousin, Edward VI, the film focuses on how a small group of greedy men maneuvered to make her queen in place of the rightful heir, Mary Tudor.

The film begins with the death of Henry VIII and his supposed curse on anyone who would try to make anyone other than his daughter Mary if his son, Edward die without issue. This is almost certainly fictional. It then follows Edward during his six year rule...one where he was essentially held prisoner and governing was done by courtiers. And, not wanting to lose this power, they conspire to make the young Jane queen upon Edward's death...as she was 16 or 17 and was rather weak. But her reign is short and the people of England supported Mary's claim to the throne.

This is a very nice looking film. It's in black & white because color film stock wasn't readily available in Britain when it was made in 1936. The costumes, acting and sets are very nice. My only concern is that such a historical drama will be seen as pretty dull stuff when seen today, though it sure kept my interest.

Nova Pilbeam draws the short straw in this interesting, if not exactly enthralling, depiction of the power-struggles that followed the death of Henry VIII in England. Edward VI (a rather lively performance from the 17 year old Desmond Tester) is not the healthiest of young men, and those in his council - initially led by Edward Seymour (Felix Aylmer) then by the Earl of Warwick (Sir Cedric Hardwicke) try to manipulate the succession. The latter prevails and upon the untimely death of the young king, he places the Lady Jane Grey - whom Henry VIII directed be 4th in the line of his own succession (she was his great niece) - ahead of the Princesses Mary and Elizabeth and so she is now, reluctantly, the Queen. To cement her precarious position she is quickly married off to a rather jolly, put politically unaware Guilford Dudley (John Mills) - the son of Warwick, so he can consolidate his control over the new puppet queen. Unfortunately for him, Princess Mary (Gwen Davies) raises troops and subverts this cunning treason. The story is established history, and the plot follows it fairly honestly. Pilbeam does elicit some degree of sympathy as she is clearly a pawn in the games of others - and both Aylmer and an on-form Hardwicke manage to create some sense of the duplicity with which these two men sought to usurp the Royal authority. The sets and costumes look fine, the dialogue maybe a bit too wordy, but it even features some genuine music written by Henry VIII and if you like a good old historical drama, then this will happily pass 80 minutes.

Having just witnessed Elizabeth II hit the landmark of being Queen for 70 years, things were very different in 1553 and 1554 when they had 3 different monarchs within the space of a year, none of whom lasted very long in the job! I've always wanted to know the story of Queen Jane and thanks to the internet I can now read about it. The film does a good job in helping to explain the different factions with an eye on power.

My problem with the film comes from the rather insipid lead characters - Nove Pilbeam (Lady Jane Grey) and John Mills (Guildford) - who are just bland. The film lacks something. There isn't much action as such as it is more a film about intrigue. This is fine. But you need strong acting skills to carry this off. Unfortunately, the picture quality and sound aren't too good which isn't the fault of the film, but these things add up to an overall feeling I had of disappointment. It's ok to watch but not a keeper. Read about the story instead - it's more interesting.

Back to Her Majesty's 70 years of reign, and I think that the monarchs of olde, especially during this film's period of mid 1550s would have been horrified and bored senseless by having to sit through a concert with Ed Sheeran, Duran Duran and whatever other nonsense was put on. Where are the be-headings! What a savage people we are. It's very sad that this still continues in the world today and that we were recently just as guilty as those we today accuse of barbaric behaviour. Why can't Cliff Richard be king and sing his songs to heal the world?