This article was originally a thread on social media, which is why it is formatted with lots of images and short responses.
The text is about the image below that paragraph.
I’ve watched ‘Firebrand’ on Netflix and shall now share my opinion on it. Fair warning: I’ll be annoying and obsessing about tiny details, also spoiler alert, some difficult subjects, rotting legs, etc.
Here’s the trailer:
This film was very difficult for me to judge, because on one side I didn’t like it, on the other side I did. I hope I can explain this.
First of all, it looks pretty good. I’m no Tudor expert but among the costumes, sets, props, etc. little stood out as being historically inaccurate.
There were some blue/grey filter scenes but usually with good reason, used because a scene is set in the winter or it’s evening while it was perhaps filmed during the day or in summer;
But those sure look like those famous beaked bird mask plague doctors used to wear… well… just two wore them… in France… in the 17th century…
I’m yet to find any evidence of these masks or anything like it being worn, or even existing outside France before that time, so it really doesn’t belong in this film.
I had to lighten the image for you to see it properly;
Now here’s a question for horse riding experts, as far as I know most ladies would ride side-saddle, but some wouldn’t have. Would Parr have done? Would her ladies in waiting have done? I don’t know, but this scene made me wonder;
I’ve always found common people’s lives much more interesting than the nobility, so I was glad to see some peasants. Although I would have liked to see a bit more colour, the costumes look pretty good to me.
I wanted to stay with these people, who cares about the king and his wives and their drama, tell me the story of these folks;
This is Anne Askew, it’s difficult to say for sure but I couldn’t help but wonder if they made her teeth a bit yellowish and added stains to her clothing.
The actress has white teeth in other photos. But maybe it’s just the filter. Also Parr & Askew weren’t that close;
Bit dark but there’s an actor who is getting paid to hold, cuddle and sweet talk to a dog and what a great job he did:
The acting is good. Both main characters do a great job and there’s a lot of acting without any acting going on.
With that I mean that there’s tension, fear, threat, etc. without anyone actually saying anything or trying to be scary;
What’s the king smelling? That little green thing in a glass bottle, what is it?
The kings leg is absolutely revolting, unless you’ve smelled wounds like this, you can’t even imagine the stench, but with great makeup and good acting you get the idea.
Also Law made sure he smelled disgusting, so some of the acting may not have been acting;
I like that kind of dedication, putting in the effort to depict something authentically;
Life at court is well depicted, it’s fun, crazy, wild. Lots of dancing, music, feasts and even though the king was of course surrounded by sycophants it still looks like they would have had a great time:
Yet still at the same time you feel tension, something is wrong:
Great shot, not a potato in sight. Hang on… were the French mocking this scene during the Olympics?!! 😉
Any bird experts out there? That ring on the bird’s leg, is it a tudor replica or something modern they couldn’t replace? Should we laugh and point or cheer and applaud the props department?
This scene is truly horrific. It’s a domestic abuse scene. If he was my husband, he would have had an unfortunate hunting accident. At some points the film becomes a thriller, genuinely tense:
Henry is such a creep. Here he is flirting with some girl as his wife and kids sit next to him;
The leg is getting worse, yes, let’s add some maggots;
Just a nice picture, could have been a Victorian painting;
So I liked the film, it’s an interesting story, at some points it feels like a thriller, it’s tense, very well acted and it all looks pretty authentic… so what’s my problem with it?
Well… they took a LOT of liberties with the story. Much of it is pure nonsense and although directors/writers of course have the freedom to do whatever they want but when your story involves real people, real events, real history, I find it a bit iffy when you take too many liberties, like in this film;
Of course I get it, it adds drama and helps the director/writer to tell a story they want to tell it.
But this is real history with real people that we know a lot about and some of what was added is just plain silly. The film suffers a bit of what I call ‘the Titanic complex’:
And that’s just a shame. Had they stuck to the real story it would have been a lot better. Then again, I would say that, wouldn’t I, I’m a history addict and spoil sport. I think that this is why Wolf Hall is better;
If you enjoyed this thread, you can find a list of reviews of films, tv shows, games, art, etc. and generally interesting threads I wrote here:
Fake History Hunter 