The Private Life of Henry VIII (1933) - film review

England, 1536.  As one wife mounts the scaffold, another prepares to take her wedding vows.  King Henry VIII is confident that this third marriage, to the beautiful but dim Jane Seymour, will be a success.  Alas, although she gives him a son and heir, she dies in childbirth.  Henry is reluctant to marry again but is persuaded to wed Anne of Cleves, to strengthen England’s bond with Germany.  This latest wife turns out to be another pedigree disaster.  Not only is she physically repugnant and still thinks babies are delivered by storks, she also cheats at cards.  Having negotiated a mutually convenient divorce with Anne, the King turns his attention to Katherine Howard, not knowing that she is loved by his courtier Thomas Culpepper.  At last, Henry believes he has found marital bliss.  Unfortunately, Katherine is soon for the chop when her infidelities are exposed.  Taking Anne’s good advice, Henry marries a sixth time, to the good-natured but meddlesome Catherine Parr - who proves to be the best and the worst of the lot.

The Private Life of Henry VIII was an early triumph for its director-producer Alexander Korda, the first British film to be a major hit in the United States.  The film won an Oscar for its lead actor, Charles Laughton in the first of many iconic film portrayals, and was also nominated for the Best Picture award. Laughton clearly relishes the role of King Henry.  In a break with the more familiar tyrannical interpretations of this most notorious of the Tudor monarchs, Laughton invests his character with humanity and pathos, and delivers some superlative comedy along the way.  "The things I do for England", he sighs wearily as he trots off to fulfil his connubial duties with an undesirable fourth wife.  The ample supporting cast  includes up-and-coming stars Robert Donat and Merle Oberon, with Elsa Lanchester shamelessly stealing the show as a wonderfully eccentric Anne of Cleves.

A lavish production, the film exemplifies both Korda’s skill as a director as his ambition as a producer.  With its authentic-looking sets, gorgeous black-and-white cinematography and unceasingly entertaining bravura performances, the film sets a high benchmark for future historical films.   Enjoyable it may be, historically accurate it certainly is not.  Indeed, it has almost as little connection with historical fact as that other famous Tudor send-up Carry On Henry (1971).  Anne Boleyn’s execution is just about the only thing that matches what we find in the history books, not that it matters one iota.  As any screenwriter will tell you, you should never let the truth get in the way of a good film.   How much more preferable is the version of history in which Henry divorced Anne of Cleves because she was a demon cardsharp.

© Derek Adamson 2010

Write a review for this film...

What do you think of this film?