MovieChat Forums > Lady Jane (1986) Discussion > The political intrigue is better than th...

The political intrigue is better than the romance


I like Helena Bonham Carter very much, so I bought this movie. I am enjoying watching it (I'm about half way through) and I will watch it all the way through I am sure.

I like the back story of political intrigue that swirls around the somewhat hapless Lady Jane and her beloved Guildford. I also like the scenes showing Lady Jane enjoying life for an all too brief period before politics and tragedy destroyed her.

My problem with this movie is that I did not totally buy the way the romance ignited. First, the character of Guildford is depicted pretty much as a wastrel given to binge drinking. Then suddenly when he and Jane are secluded in the priory, he's making idealistic speeches that I doubt someone from that era and of that high station in life would have ever made. Similarly, Jane goes from being fearful and naive about her status as a newly married woman to being ecstatically in love with Guildford. It just doesn't make much sense. I suppose that it might if we consider the fact that both Jane and Guildford were so very young (Bonham Carter, although 20 at the time, has no difficulty passing herself off as 15) and what we were seeing was youthful infatuation. Yet it would have been nice for such a long movie to have a little more exposition in Jane and Guildford's love affair before cueing the lyrical music.

Anyway, I still think that it's worth the watch, and I have a feeling once the politics reassert themselves the movie will improve. In any case, it is a joy to see Helena Bonham Carter playing the role of a tragic heroine so very well.

reply

I'd have to agree about your points regarding the movie. I found it a bit hard to accept that they went from utter loathing to complete adoration and true love so quickly, but I DID find it believable that someone like Guilford (the more common spelling of his name and his mother's maiden name) could be that idealistic. While it would certainly have been uncommon, it was most definitely possible, though not recorded that Guilford Dudley was anything of the sort. On the contrary, the picture of him I've gotten through research is that of a spoiled child who threw temper tantrums when his wife refused to make him king.

At times, Helena Bonham Carter's drastic changes from calm to hysterical and back again were a bit annoying, but overall, I thought she made a wonderful Lady Jane Grey, and quite believable in the part of an innocent, fifteen-year-old pawn who wanted nothing more than to be left alone to study and pray.

Arianwen

reply

Alas, the true Jane Grey and Guildford Dudley did not much like one another, and never wanted to marry. History suggests they probably never consummated their marriage. She was religious and studious, he was a partier...by all reports, neither of them were particularly attractive.

He did, however, seem to fully support the cause that was being attempted (to keep a Protestant on the throne). Before his execution, he carved the name "JANE" on the wall of his cell in the tower of London. You can see it there today.

I always assumed in film that their sudden mutual "love" was actually plain old, garden-variety lust that just progressively went well until it turned into love. They were, after all, adolescents suddenly given permission to er...enjoy the pleasures of the marital bed.

reply

I've heard arguments both ways regarding the consummation of the marriage, and I remain undecided. The carving of her name is certainly interesting, though it's never been proven beyond doubt that it wasn't there before Guilford Dudley was put into that cell. I prefer to think it was him, though. Call it the inner romantic. ;-)

reply

If it was in fact Guilford who carved "Jane" on the wall of the cell (and it may have been b/c it was the cell he stayed in), it could have been for his mother who he was devoted to and whose name was also Jane...he spent most of his time in prison supposdly making a tribute to his family before his execution.

~There's nothing like looking at your own history in the faces of your friends~

reply

My question to you would then be this: when you're writing something to your mother, do you begin it with 'Mother' or some variation thereof, or do you put her first name? I, for one, would never think of addressing my mother by her given name, so I would be more likely to carve 'Mother' or 'Mum', as I call her, than her first name. Therefore, is it more likely it was to his mother, his wife, or someone else entirely?

Regards,
Arianwen

reply

Another reports Lady Jane to be "very short and thin, but prettily shaped and graceful" with red hair and freckles.

http://home.earthlink.net/~elisale/janegrey.html

So maybe she was homely, and then again, maybe she was not. Perhaps it is easier to believe she was homely because of her reported religious, studious and austere nature?

"It's to be important, but it's more important to be nice"

reply

I liked the politics better too. The love was nice, but why were they always nakd? I don't get it.

reply

[deleted]

Lady Jane did not love Guilford Dudley, nor was she ready physically or emotionally for marriage at 15. That was entirely a celluloid fantasy world to entertain audiences.

Who knows if the marriage were consummated? Dudley's father ordered him to do it. Must have been odious, painful rape when a girl really doesn't want to copulate.

Her parents, goaded by the bible, beat the girl into submission -- an apt preparation for the physical cruelty of 16th century christian marriage. Take parental whippngs, take rape, take childbirth pain, take burning alive in some cases, take having your head cut off. Total submission and subjugation of females.

A brilliant but fragile little Protestant saint trapped in a brutal century.

Lady Jane is to be pitied, for if she lived today she'd have good education, freedom and human rights. Would probably attend Bob Jones University.... and have an IQ of 150 ... and enjoy Mensa. Heck, I'd like to adopt her.

What intrigues me is, Lady Jane so tightly clutched the very religion that subjugated females. While not entirely to blame, the bible and christianity went hand in hand with 16th century barbarism to subjugate women, children, and eventually African slaves and native peoples.

On the scaffold, Lady Jane said "I die a christian woman...."

True, but if the girl had died a humanist or atheist, she would not have died "kissing the rod that chastened her" throughout her life. In other words, sucking up to the religious element of oppression.

Also wonder if Lady Jane might have been pregnant on the scaffold? Just a thought -- if Guilford had had any conjugal Yuletide visits? Doubt it. But one thing's for sure: Lady Jane would have been only too willing to obey Genesis 3:16 and take her womanly punishment bearing children with the complete trappings of Tudor butchery and ignorance. Anything to make her precious "god" happy.

* *

Frances Gray: That vicious female dog was responsible for the torment of Lady Jane and the forced marriage.

Frances was a stout female dog, I believe, one who swung her fists readily. Thank goodness Lady Jane sent no final letter to dear Mother, though her Father received one. A most submissive sweet sounding letter the girl wrote to her paternal Master. (Father was beheaded later after a failed rebellion, and his severed skull is still in existence. Saw a photo of it).

Mother lifted no finger to aid her imprisoned daughter. Lady Jane was actually in danger of being burned alive, depending on Bloody Mary's fancy.

Would any decent Mother do nothing to aid her 15 year old daughter, if the child were in danger of being burned? Or beheaded? What savages they were back then.

Frances Gray flirted with some young peasant stud, I believe. The pair married, had a little fun, Frances oblivious to her daughter lying butchered in a pool of blood.

Then Frances, the female dog, soon died too.

reply

Frances Grey is the worst mother in history.

reply

Interesting comments on the barbarism of the times. Thank goodness this treatment of women does not typify modern Christianity. Unfortunately, that type of savage behavior is exactly what women under Islam today undergo--and worse. Islam is the scourge of humanity and about 500 years behind Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, regarding the treatment of women, children, not to mention infidels.

Toodles.

Marianne

reply

Unfortunately, that type of savage behavior is exactly what women under Islam today undergo--and worse. Islam is the scourge of humanity and about 500 years behind Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, regarding the treatment of women, children, not to mention infidels.


And yet it is the fastest growing religion in the world. I just don't understand why anyone, especially women, would (willfully) embrace such a religion in these times.

reply

Please don't take this response as me telling you you're wrong...I'm just responding to your post with my own thoughts. :)

While I would not have stood by and let my daughter die, Frances Grey did what many people would do in that situation, both then AND now: keep quiet for fear of suffering the same fate. And Frances was not oblivious to her daughter's death...but what was she to do? Had she acted she would have met the same bloody end.

"Take parental whippings, take rape, take childbirth pain, take burning alive in some cases, take having your head cut off."

Many of these actions still happen today. The only thing that changed are the people and environments. I do not believe they were savages at all. While Jane's whipping was painful, she was, in her mother's mind, an obstinate child going against her parents' wishes and her duty to her family. Parents still disclipine their children, some in the same way, for disobeying them. Childbirth pain still exists. Women still die in childbirth all around the world. And while we don't burn people alive or cut their heads off much, we still electrocute and poison them. Our motives for doing so are just different.

"What intrigues me is, Lady Jane so tightly clutched the very religion that subjugated females. While not entirely to blame, the bible and christianity went hand in hand with 16th century barbarism to subjugate women, children, and eventually African slaves and native peoples. "

Different time. Different mindset. Women, for the most part, understood their place in life was different than that of men. The idea of being a 'good christian woman' was to adhere to the principals laid out in the Bible and to honor AND obey her lord and master (her husband). While I don't personally believe I am anyone's servant, I understand that ideas and self-image change with time.

"Lady Jane did not love Guilford Dudley, nor was she ready physically or emotionally for marriage at 15. That was entirely a celluloid fantasy world to entertain audiences. Who knows if the marriage were consummated? Dudley's father ordered him to do it. Must have been odious, painful rape when a girl really doesn't want to copulate."

She may have just layed there while it happened. It goes back to that whole different mindset. While she may not have wanted it, you were expected to comply with your husband's want of sex. Which is also why alot of the women had that 'pregnant' look. Due to the fact that pregnancy had alot more complications than they do now (due to modern medication) husbands would many times avoid having sex with a pregnant wife so not to upset the pregnancy. This would allow you to have a few moments of respit from your husband (if you didn't want to be with him....and many women actually did learn to love their husbands). The nobility and merchant class rarely married for love. It was all about social status. You may have been a knight's daughter....but if you play your cards right you can marry a baron and then your children would be the children of a baron. The peasantry really had more of the 'luxury' to marry 'where their hearts lie'. The marriages of the nobility were more about acquiring new land and forming treaties than love. Many times noble husbands and wives only had sex to create children. And then they would spend their time in separate beds, even separate homes. Sometimes not even in the same country.

And Frances' distance from her daughter was probably the result of her station. Jane, like most upper class children, had a nanny to watch over her. Most of the time, children weren't even breast-fed by their own mothers, but instead by a wet nurse. When a prince or princess was born, for example, they were setup with their own castle with their own household to attend to their needs. Imagine, a baby with their -own- servants. Prinesses Mary and Elizabeth had this kindof upbringing. So, in Jane's case, her mother was able to disclipine her in such a cold way because she didn't really raise her daughter thru the first several years of her life, and therefore had no tender maternal feelings toward her. If you remember in the movie, the nurse/nanny was fighting back tears thru the whole ordeal because -she- had raise Jane and probably loved her like a daughter. But because she was a servant, it was not her place to argue with Frances. And anyway, some women make better mothers than others, even in today's society.

I did enjoy the movie, despite some historical inaccuracies. But I think they did a great job portraying the people and attitudes of the time.

reply