Trystan already did a detailed review on Firebrand (2023), the Queen Katherine Parr-focused film that came out last year. It’s finally come to streaming and I got a chance to watch it, and I wanted to chime in with my own thoughts with the added benefit that I have access to screencaps which Trystan didn’t! Firebrand takes up in 1544 after King Henry VIII (Jude Law) married Katherine (Alicia Vikander), and focuses on Katherine up until the death of the king in 1547.
First, I wanted to say, I knew I was going to enjoy the costumes but worried whether the plot would drag. While I have some major plot quibbles, I want to say, YES the costumes are by and large outstanding and the film had me engaged throughout (mostly nodding til the end, when I started WTFing)! And now, a whole bunch of random thoughts on Firebrand:
Firebrand‘s Costumes
Designed by Michael O’Connor and well covered textually by Trystan in her review, they really are one of the more impressively accurate views of upper-class Tudor clothing I’ve seen on screen. Now, with the benefit of screencaps:
As we’ve previously ranted, the point of showing historically accurate costumes on screen is to accurately depict the world — physical and mental — that the characters inhabit. There’s no better example than Henrician men’s dress, which is a physical embodiment of the kind of masculinity popular in this era:
By and large, I also liked the middle-ish class costumes, although the very muddy color range tended more towards the dung ages trope than the far more bright and varied colors found in research by people like The Tudor Tailor:
Firebrand‘s Casting
Okay, so there’s a range of opinions on whether historical films should cast actors that look like their subjects (when they’re about real people). No matter where you stand on the issue, I just have to say, wow did they cast actors with the right look for the era and individuals:
Firebrand‘s Plot
SPOILER ALERT: If you haven’t seen the film, you may not want to read this bit! Because surprisingly (to me), given how focused they were on historical accuracy in costume, the filmmakers clearly felt they needed to oomph up the real history in order for the plot to resonate with the proverbial modern audience.
First, there’s the whole very-in-person relationship with Anne Askew. Yes, Askew’s arrest was tied in to attempts to bring down Queen Katherine and her reformist circle, but I don’t believe there was any actual relationship between the two. But okay, I can see how it might be hard to translate to a modern audience how on-the-bleeding-edge Katherine was with not only her thoughts but also discussions and writings.
But the whole Katherine being actually arrested and then killing Henry? OMG, so many issues! First, as we know, once Henry arrested someone they were pretty much done for — there’d be no final “oh let her out so she can visit me on my deathbed” re-thinking on Henry’s part. Further, the idea that anyone would be left alone while the king is dying just would never happen, so there wouldn’t have been an opportunity for Katherine to kill Henry.
And one of the life’s/history’s ultimate irritations is the fact that no one was ever able to hold a mirror up to Henry’s face. Katherine had to give up the man she loved and make nice (and dumb herself down) for a man who was a disgusting, oozing, gross, and the ultimate patriarchal manchild. Grappling with that is part and parcel with grappling with Katherine (and many other life disappointments). I get it, apparently modern audiences are dumb and couldn’t POSSIBLY understand how Katherine did sort of win in the end by outliving him and then going on to marry the guy she was actually in love with, and also the audience couldn’t handle the fact that Katherine’s win wasn’t actually so great in the end.
And finally, wtf with the final voiceover by Princess Elizabeth and the final title card? No mention of the further drama/victory/irony of Katherine finally marrying the man she’d be in love with for years only to have him turn out to be a pedophile and a creep? And to die after childbirth?? Damn. That’s leaving out 50% of why she’s such a fascinating story!
Plus, I would bet you $10,000 that if my mother watched this film and then saw this title card, she would be thinking that “princess” referred to Katherine, not Elizabeth:
Have you watched Firebrand (2023)? What was your take on the costumes and plot?
Find this frock flick at:
I love love love that they had a go at the white bands.
And huge respect for Jude Law for that saggy bum shot. It was gross and perfect.
Oh god, the sex scene. I may never recover!
Overall I thought the costumes were gorgeous and I want to see the actress who played Elizabeth in more things (especially period pieces). My only minor nitpick/confusion is the decision to seemingly lighten Alicia Vikander’s eyebrows, despite keeping the rest of her hair close to or at its natural shade? In certain lighting it gave the impression that Katherine was kickstarting the bleached brows trend several centuries early.
Ha! I missed that! Usually I’m annoyed by the bleached blonde with dark brown eyebrows (in historical films).
Loved the costumes and thought Jude did make a good Henry but I was very upset by the plot turn in the end. That did not happen! All who watched will know what I mean.
Wasn’t there a Warrant issued for Katherine Parr’s arrest at one point that she sweet-talked Henry out of by getting into his chamber before they were able to serve it on her? Or was that a PFG invention?
Have you had ‘The Mirror and the Light’ over there yet? We just have one episode to go in the UK.
Yes, there was a warrant and that was the big drama of her life (minus all her post-Henry stuff), but the filmmakers apparently didn’t think that was dramatic enough so had her actually imprisoned in a literal dungeon-y jail cell.
We don’t get Wolf Hall til late March and we’re all on the edge of our seats!
That bloody cell and the unqueenly wardrobe! Queens had proper apartments, gowns, and servants in the Tower, whatever they had supposedly done. A really fine young Elizabeth, though, and wondrous costuming throughout.
Maybe. The story comes from exactly one source, Edward Hall the protestant polemicist. Something apparently happened, there are ambassadorial reports of a coolness between the King and Queen, but NO corroboration for the whole drama of near arrest and reconciliation. In fact Henry and Katherine got a long very well, apart from that one rough spot that may have just been court gossip. And Katherine wrote some surprisingly convincing love letters to Henry.
The Simpson predicted this plot twist! OMFG, The Simpsons predicts everything!
You posted a screengrab of Henry in hose and a jacket, and all that I could see was a right-wing dad wearing saggy chinos and a leather varsity jacket. He looks like a men’s rights schmuck on his way to the golf course. I love it.
That would certainly be the modern equivalent!
Having seen this film my first thought was that the Look was gorgeous, the performances were sound (Mr Jude Law was Scary Perfect as King Henry, radiating the “WTF will he do next?” energy I associate with Great Harry, something that I felt Mr Damien Lewis only sporadically tapped into in WOLF HALL, though he really, really really owns it in THE MIRROR AND THE LIGHT*, even if his take on the role felt a bit TOO vulgar), that I was deeply relieved Carlos made it through the film intact and that the script was quite howling it stupid at points (Or at least wilfully ignorant of the more likely consequences to the risks Queen Catherine was shown to take throughout the film).
Not my favourite Tudor film, but it has it’s
points.
*I may not be the Best audience for this series: my reaction to last episode’s conclusion was “Cromwell is Down, Cromwell is DOWN!” and a little dance of excitement.
“Cromwell is Down, Cromwell is DOWN!”
LOLOLOL
Also, I forgot to mention: some of the weird plot twists in this film become a lot more plausible when you reflect that, while she looks sensible, Queen Catherine actually chose to marry Thomas ‘Whoops, I shot the King’s dog’ Seymour, apparently of her own free will.
Which, it should be admitted, suggests that the lady wasn’t nearly as wise as was intelligent.
But that’s part of her complexity!
Indeed – also an excellent excuse to wonder what Admiral Tom kept under that codpiece.😉
I think the white bands go all the way down at the back cuz the movie designer interpreted them as skirt harness to pull up the train.
If one looks closely at the famous Holbein portrait of a Tudor lady front and back view, the white shoulder band is visible and on the back it disappears into the shoulder V. It could be just a decorative bit or more appropriately, a “nominal” shawl worn out of etiquette rather than a definite purpose much like a modern day tie worn with high buttoned shirts. Similar nominal shoulder draping features in Italian Renaissance portraiture albeit made of sable and called zibellino, the lace tippet pieces draped loosely over neck (not tacked to the neckline unlike tucker) in mid 18th century portraiture and the “tippet” of fur or lace mandated in the court wear norms of Regency England under Charlotte.
In their latest book, The Typical Tudor, the Tudor Tailor people theorise that the white bands are folded towels or big pieces of very fine linen folded into strips. They cite a picture of Elizabeth and her ladies at a Maundy ceremony where they wear the towels very similarly. I tried this out when I was doing 1535 reenactment last year and based my costume on Holbein’s Alice More, and I have to say I was sceptical at first but am now convinced. A folded and pressed piece of very fine linen, a half yard by one and a half yards, hangs like the ones in the pictures. The idea is that the narrowness of the band is a flex, like, look how fine my linen is to be foldable like that!
With that in mind, Anne Askew’s make no sense as they are a rather coarse linen, but at least they tried.