Lady Jane

Lady Jane Grey, the "Nine Days' Wonder", is a controversial figure in English history, one of a small group of English "monarchs" whose right to that title is accepted by some historians and denied by others. (Others include Queen Matilda, King Louis and King Philip, the husband of Jane's nemesis Queen Mary I). To some, mostly Protestants, she is Queen Jane, the rightful Queen of England for the nine days between 10th and 19th July 1553. To others, mostly Catholics, Mary was rightfully Queen from the death of her half-brother Edward VI and Jane a mere usurper.

Legally, in fact, the position was complicated. Mary, like her sister Elizabeth, had been declared a bastard by their father Henry VIII. Towards the end of his life, however, Henry had passed the Third Succession Act, which restored his daughters to the line of succession without formally legitimising them. Edward, as he lay dying, had executed a will excluding Mary and Elizabeth from the succession and naming his cousin Jane as his successor, although, because this will had not yet been ratified by Parliament at the time of his death, Mary's supporters argued that it carried less weight than Henry's Act. Jane was proclaimed Queen by the Privy Council, who then promptly abandoned her when they realised that Mary enjoyed more popular support and that attempts to prevent her accession were doomed to failure.

"Lady Jane" was the third British film about Jane's life after a silent version from the 1920s and "Tudor Rose" from 1936, neither of which I have seen. It was made in 1986, during the "Thatcher Years", to a script by the well-known left-wing playwright David Edgar, so it is perhaps unsurprising that it is essentially Tudor history rewritten to suit the Guardian-reading classes of the 1980s. It is a curious mixture of costume drama and political tract, of fact and fiction. It follows the essential outlines of Lady Jane's story but contains two major divergences from historical fact.

The first of these concerns the relationship between Jane and her husband Lord Guilford Dudley. At first Edgar paints them as they are portrayed in most history books- Jane as intellectually precocious, scholarly and devoutly religious, Guilford as a debauched young man more interested in frequenting taverns and whorehouses than in reading Plato. Both are initially reluctant to marry and have to be coerced by their parents, who see the match as politically and financially advantageous. In the film, however, Jane and Guilford quickly fall deeply in love, although the historical evidence suggests that they disliked one another intensely throughout their marriage.

Edgar's second major divergence from history is his attempt to introduce twentieth-century politics into the period. During their brief reign Jane and Guilford are so shocked by the poverty of their subjects that they introduce a reformist political agenda- distribution of land among the peasantry, state-funded relief of poverty, universal free education based upon progressive principles and the abolition of corporal punishment. At times I thought I was watching an alternate history fantasy about how England, under the enlightened rule of Queen Jane the Good, became the world's first socialist welfare state nearly four centuries before such ideas caught on in the rest of the world. In the film it is this reformist agenda, as much as any popular support for Mary, which causes Jane's Council to abandon her cause, her Councillors all being wealthy Establishment figures with much to lose from such socio-economic reforms. Also, Mary's determination to marry Philip of Spain was due more to political considerations than to romantic love, and Thomas Wyatt's rebellion did not aim to restore Jane to the throne. (By 1554 England's Protestants had turned to Elizabeth as their champion).

And yet, despite Edgar's tendentious distortion of history, this was a film which I enjoyed in many ways. The love story of Jane and Guilford, however ahistorical it might be, was touchingly handled. Helena Bonham Carter, in her second major film role, was not as good as she had been in "A Room with a View" the previous year, making Jane perhaps rather too priggish. Cary Elwes, however, is good, playing as Guilford as that familiar figure from coming-of-age dramas, the truculent, rebellious teenager who matures into a sensitive, caring young man when he finds true love. Jane Lapotaire is also good as Queen Mary, making her more sympathetic than one would expect given her popular reputation as the tyrannical "Bloody Mary". It is a far more subtle portrayal of the Queen than Kathy Burke's demented fishwife in "Elizabeth". Other good performances come from Patrick Stewart and Sara Kestelman as Jane's overbearing parents, John Wood as her devious, scheming father-in-law the Duke of Northumberland, Warren Saire as the tormented King Edward and Michael Hordern as Doctor Feckenham, the elderly Catholic theologian who vainly tries to convert Jane to his faith. (Despite Edgar's modernising agenda, he does not try to hide the religious controversies of the period, with Jane's fervent Protestantism and Mary's equally fervent Catholicism much to the fore).

The film was directed by Trevor Nunn, best-known as a stage and television director. It is one of only three feature films he has made, the others being adaptations of Ibsen's "Hedda Gabler" and Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night". Yet on the basis of this film and "Twelfth Night" (I have never seen "Hedda") it seems a pity that he has not worked more in the cinema. Here he handles his material well, the story moves fluently and there are a number of memorable scenes. I was particularly struck by the one where Jane and Guilford announce their wishes for the country, with each wish smashing a wine-glass with the exclamation "Then it is done!" Even though it might tell us more about the 1980s than the 1550s, "Lady Jane" is still a very watchable historical romance-drama. 7/10

It's hard for me to be objective about this film as I find both the main actors so divine, but I thought the portrayal of the developing romance extremely moving, by the time the film ended I was sobbing, and I say that about almost NO movie.

The cinematography was stunning, both indoor and outdoor shots were beautifully visualised and captured. The sets and costumes also were extremely well done.

Although it has been more than a decade since I saw Lady Jane, I remember that it moved me greatly. The ambiance and characters are fully developed. Helen Bonham Carter was quite young, perfect for the role, and turned out to be quite a revelation. I saw the film in Madrid. I'll never forget the sight of a middle aged Spaniard (male) in the audience weeping at the conclusion. (The Spanish nobility were the "bad guys" of this drama).

"The next time I see your face, I want it for eternity." If you know much at all about Lady Jane Grey and her unfortunate marriage to Guildford Dudley, you must know this cannot at all be what she said to him as they were parted for the last time. Yet the story branches away from the historical aspects of Jane's life and builds up a romance completely created in the minds of the writers, who have done an excellent job. In the beginning, the scene at Bradgate in Leicester, with the dance for the King, is extremely well shot. The plot thickens between the cunning Earl of Northumberland and the cold, greedy Duchess of Suffolk, while Jane argues theology with the Catholic doctor. Comparing this with history, I believe this was also very well written; from what I've read on Jane Grey (I have done extensive Tudor period research) I know she was very Protestant and, unlike the later Queen Elizabeth, very willing to argue on the topic of religion. Perhaps my favorite scene in the entire movie is the one where Jane goes to visit the Princess Mary. In this scene the Renaissance class system is extremely well depicted. The outwardly friendly but rather sneaky nature the Princess' maid (I believe that is Lady Anne Wharton) conducts herself shows the "subservience of the lesser nobility"; the proud way Jane speaks to the maid shows what the upper nobility could do; and then the regal, majestic, icy cold way the Princess Mary enters the room and "embraces" her second-cousin is the perfect example of a Princess of two royal bloodlines. Later, the love that blooms between Guildford and Jane will, without a doubt, sweep you off your feet. If you've ever been in love, I guarantee you'll relive some fond memories there. Overall, an excellent movie and highly recommended.

The first thing to love about this movie is how good it is at being a historical drama. It opens by telling you what has come before, and the ending is made even more poignant (if that is possible) by knowing what will come after. In between, it stays far more authentic than many "historical" movies ever bother to with little apparent effort. This ease is due not only to the gripping bit of history being told, but to the superb acting by all the major players.

While none of the performances are bad, or even mediocre, some bits manage to shine even brighter. Jane Lapotaire as Princess Mary is wonderfully haunted by longing and desperation behind the strong, poised front. Patrick Stewart shows us ever so briefly that his Henry Grey is not only a cold-hearted conspirator and dominating patriarch, but a father who desperate needs to make things right for his little girl. Helena Bonham Carter and Cary Elwes play superbly off each other as Lady Jane Grey and Guilford Dudley, bringing out nuances in each other's performance that cement the core of this beautiful story.