• Release year: 2024
• Director: Karim Aïnouz.
• Producers: Carolyn Marks Blackwood and Gabrielle Tana.
• Screenplay by: Henrietta Ashworth and Jessica Ashworth.
• Cinematography by: Hélène Louvart.
• Music by: Dickon Hinchliffe.

Shotgun Commentary: interesting retelling of a largely-ignored piece of history.

Review

Firebrand focuses on Catherine Parr’s life from the end of her regency to the death of King Henry VIII. Despite the director being a man, all the writers involved, both in the original novel and in the film, are women. This brings a fascinating female perspective to what is yet another story about the Tudors.

One more time, with feeling

As much as one can enjoy a historical-ish film, it seems like the British historical genre has little more to offer than the Tudors and King Arthur. Royalty has its own special flair, and the atrocities committed by the Crown in the past have a morbid attraction. Yet, is that all England has to offer? Are there no more stories? Is it just going to be the same five or six royals being mentioned over and over? Surely, there must be a limit, or there should be, to how many times the same story is told, especially if the latest version brings nothing new to the table.

This narrative in particular has the peculiarity of having a strong female perspective despite the protagonist being a queen consort. In that sense, the feature is interesting and different enough that its status as the umpteenth work about the same group of people can be forgiven. To this, it could be added that Catherine Parr is arguably the least known wife of Henry VIII. Most cinematic adaptations choose to focus on the Catherine of Aragon-Anne Boleyn drama instead, as it is probably the juiciest of his marital life.

We were also there

The female gaze is present all throughout the feature thanks to specific instances. The most obvious of all being Catherine’s (Alicia Vikander) relationship to Henry (Jude Law). The movie never runs out of ways of showing you that men are pigs. Locating the emphasis of this idea, of course, in Henry being amongst the most disgusting pieces of filth there are.

From his childish attempts to get a raise out of Catherine by pitting her against other women in the court, to physical abuse, his worst traits are highlighted by this feminine standpoint. The summit of this being the visual comparison, through a perfectly placed transition, between Henry’s nauseating gout wounds and his repulsive behaviour during sexual intercourse. The revolting feeling seeping from one moment to the next, making the point so clear it’s almost comedic.

However, Henry is not the only small man in the film. Much like it happens in The Critic (2023), Thomas Seymour (Sam Riley) also betrays his love interest when he feels like his position of power might be compromised. It is astonishing that this character could offend with his behaviour more than he does with his cheap, fake beard. Nevertheless, he manages to do so. So much so that you almost forget that meagre bird nest for a few seconds.

It’s not all about the opposite sex

Still, the female gaze doesn’t solely depend on men to manifest itself. The choice of moments you see, versus those you don’t are also incredibly telling. Refusing to hide from the desperation and horror Catherine suffers during her abortion, but omitting the torture and burning of her friends, is a great step away from the male gaze.

In this genre, usually the suffering and punishment of women is something the camera bathes in with morbid enjoyment. This outdated storytelling technique is changed in favour of a more intelligent, less sexualised way to showcase the horrors of being a woman during this era. An incredibly hopeful step towards a better cinema.

Small note here though, can we please not make the “bird in a cage” metaphor the new “there are more things on heaven and Earth, Horatio…”? In the last three months, there have been at least three films that use the exact same metaphor with the exact same purposes (Timestalker and What You See of Me are the other two, in case you are wondering). So, maybe it is time to think about other ways to evoke the caging of a woman?

Bless them

Another big theme of the feature is religion, as it is to be expected of a XVI century-based film. The portrayal of the church as an evil, greedy, power-hoarding cult that will stop at nothing to keep progress from taking place and keep people as ignorant as possible in order to manipulate them better, is a pretty accurate portrayal.

This is not the first time the Church is criticised, and it won’t be last, so other than to add tension and make you rage inside, the topic doesn’t add much to the tale, especially considering that, even after making the whole protestantism the main issue of the story, they never bother to offer an ending or in-credits explanation about what happened in the end.

Visuals, visuals, visuals

The two most delightful surprises, script aside, are the characterisation and the artistic references. The first, is so well-made that even a big fan of Jude Law like yours truly didn’t recognise him until after an hour of film had passed. You rack your brain trying to remember where you’ve seen those eyes before, but it’s not until a very well-placed shot with a very specific light configuration illuminates the expression of the upper half of his face that you get your answer. A fine makeup work indeed.

The second, is testimony of the artistry of the photography. Tons of shots are exactly like classic paintings of the real royals that form this story and, while there is a specific shot of Catherine that alludes to one of her most famous portraits, no shot is more powerful than the last one, Mary’s one. After talking about how Princess Mary’s reign wouldn’t be defined by death and war, she turns and half-smiles with that unnerving smile that accompanies her most well-known portrait, a piece that gets more spine-chilling the more you know about the real reign of Bloody Mary.

All in all, Firebrand is a welcomed addition to the long line of Tudor content in existence. One that, despite all odds, actually manages to tell something new and push the cinematic narratives of its genre forward. The care put into it is apparent and the result gorgeous.

Thanks to Metfilm Distribution for big screen access! Firebrand will be released the 6th of September in UK.

Advice to take from this movie:

• The fact that Henry VIII talks in plural in this film because all monarchs consider that God and them are one is so conceited, ridiculous and hilarious, one can’t help but lament that this stupid behaviour isn’t shown in all monarchy-themed content.
• Some historical theories are worth exploring, even if it’s just for sh*ts and giggles.
• A good makeup department can do ANYTHING.

What’s your take? Have you watched Firebrand? What are your thoughts on monarchy content?

Don’t hesitate to let me know your thoughts in the comments section below, or leave a message in my contact page! For more reviews and cinema-related articles, check out the rest of my blog! 😀