Not Everything Can Be Made Amusing: A Review of Amazon Prime’s My Lady Jane
When I learned that Amazon Prime had made a TV series based on the life of Lady Jane Grey, England’s doomed Nine-Day Queen, I was intrigued. But when I watched the trailer for My Lady Jane which painted the show as a comical take on the poor girl’s life, I was confused. Jane Grey’s story is not in any way funny. Still, given the stellar cast and the potential for a steamy, slow burn romance between Jane (played by the lovely Emily Bader) and her hot husband, Lord Guildford Dudley (played by the interestingly handsome Edward Bluemel), and being in a bit of a TV show slump, I said why not?
Note: I will try to avoid major spoilers, but to present an adequate review, I will probably divulge some story details. If you want to watch the show completely unspoiled, perhaps click away…
So, if you don’t know the true story already, in 1553, sixteen-year-old Lady Jane Grey ascended the British throne when her cousin, King Edward VI (the sickly son of King Henry VIII) died and named Jane as his royal heir, despite the legitimate claims of his half-sisters Mary (daughter of Henry’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon) and Elizabeth (daughter of Anne Boleyn). While her position in the family tree did make her a genuine successor to the throne, Jane was actually a pawn of many scheming nobles, and she was pretty much doomed from the start. After only nine days, Mary managed to gather enough support to usurp Jane, and she locked the poor girl up in the Tower of London while she decided what to do with her. Eventually, politics and other pressures pushed now-Queen Mary (who wasn’t really all that nice anyway) to behead Jane, Jane’s father, and her husband, Lord Guildford Dudley, for treason. If you want a decent if highly romanticized version of the story, check out the 1986 movie Lady Jane starring Helena Bonham Carter and Carey Elwes, although I’ll warn you that it will probably make you cry.
Given that the real Jane Grey’s life ended in execution by beheading, I couldn’t imagine how Amazon could rewrite history enough to make its My Lady Jane a comedy.*
Their first effort to accomplish this is to have a narrator (Oliver Chris) provide running, comedic commentary on Jane as a character and life at court in general. While this serves to paint Jane as a heroine for modern audiences and to point out the ridiculousness of the politics involved in the monarchy at the time, when things start to get dark (which they do), the cheeky asides kind of fall flat. It’s hard to make a scene where Queen Mary uses a crossbow to kill subjects forced to run across a field as targets in any way amusing. And having a narrator say, when Jane finds herself locked in a cell in the infamous Tower, that Jane is “royally fucked”, does not in any way diminish the direness of her situation.
Second, they cast amazing actors to give over-the-top performances that push historical figures such as Princess (future Queen) Mary into farcical territory. Seriously, Kate O’Flynn as Mary should have a mustache to twirl, and her BDSM relationship with Dominic Cooper’s Lord Seymour never grows old. Second only to Flynn is the indubitably talented Anna Chancellor as Jane’s mother, Lady Frances Grey, who steals every scene she’s in. And while Henry Ashton begins the series as a one-note, effeminate, MILF-obsessed fop, his portrayal of Guildford Dudley’s brother Stan gains dimension by the end of the show.
In order to create conflict (as if Jane didn’t have enough) and, I think, to serve as an allegory for non-hetero-normative persons, the world of this Jane is populated by two types of people: Verities are “normal” humans while Ethians are humans who can change at will into animals. The Verities rule society and cast the Ethians as evil, dangerous beasts who need to be eradicated. The enlightened Jane knows that Ethians deserve respect and that everyone should simply live and let live. When a big secret is revealed, her determination to integrate Ethians fully into society is solidified and gives Mary a sanctioned reason to torment her.
For the first few episodes, the show manages to deliver what it promises. The relationship between Jane and her husband-by-forced-marriage Guildford is sufficiently hostile to provide a nice, enemies-to-lovers slow-burn with plenty of snarky banter, although I think they carry the tease on a bit too long. The political maneuvering and intrigues at court are kept on the hi-jinks level with no sense that any kind of real life-or-death is at stake. Even Princess Mary’s sociopathic narcissism is played for laughs.
But then things get dark. Because we know history, it’s no spoiler that eventually Jane’s reign ends and she’s thrown in prison and accused of treason. And what before had been a comical evil on Princess Mary’s part becomes legitimate evil as she proves to be a sadistic, vengeful queen determined to execute Jane and Guildford just because she can.
And it’s here that things fell apart for me. Because while I suspected that things would ultimately work out for Jane and Guildford – this is billed as a romantic comedy after all – the show takes things right down to the wire in ways that are not funny at all. Even the biggest selling point – the romance between Jane and Guildford – is left on the side of the road, the two characters having almost no interaction at all once Jane is dethroned.
Perhaps the show required too big a suspension of disbelief. Because Jane Grey was a real person, her tragic history always simmers just beneath the surface, shading the entire story with a grimness that no amount of writerly sleight-of-hand could hide. She simply isn’t a good subject for a romantic comedy even if they do make her a smart, twenty-first-century-worthy girl boss.
In the end, I give the series a C. It’s not awful by any means. Like I’ve said, the actors are top-notch, the show is eminently watchable, and some of the humor is, indeed, humorous. But the cognitive dissonance brought the whole experience down, especially at the end. If you want to watch something in the same vein as My Lady Jane, where a tragedy is given a comic spin, check out Hulu’s Rosaline. It’s fantastic!
* The TV series is actually an adaptation of the book My Lady Jane written by Cynthia Hand, Brodi Ashton and Jodi Meadows. I haven’t read it and have no idea how closely the show hews to the source material or if the book is any good.
Another counterfactual Tudor drama starring Jude Law is coming to a theater near you on Sept 6.
Initial reviews are poor.
It has to be. The last good one I saw was Anne of Thousand Days and that came out in 1970! Another good one, which is only tangentially about Henry VIII is ‘A Man for All Seasons’. They don’t make them like those any more.
I see it just got cancelled.
Too bad; I think it was amusing for what it was.
As I was on a long vacation, I’m late to put my opinion here. In a nutshell: you can make a joke about anything, but that does not mean that the joke is going to be amusing.
And a romantic comedy is, above everything else, a comedy, not a drama.
What I see is some people from a different culture (British history is not American history) making fun of a very painful time in European history, the religious wars in the 16th and 17th centuries, with Catholics being prosecuted in Protestants and Protestants by Catholics, all Europe threatened by the Turks who enslaved many Christians in the Mediterranean coasts and the Jewish being oppressed everywhere… You know, it’s difficult to imagine how all the complexity and pain of those times can be used as the background of a comedy. Although I guess that the ‘historical’ part of the show must probably be reduced to the clothing and little else. Or perhaps not even that.
So I understand that someone that comes from a different culture can make a joke about it and laugh at those times of religious fanatism. But, personally, I don’t think it is a show that I would find amusing.
I asume Cynthia Hand -or the TV producers- will never try to make fun of any episode of the story of countries like India, China or Japan, for instance. It would be interesting to see if they would be brave enough to do something like that about painful episodes in the history of their own country.
It’s very easy to mock the history of other countries. It’s more difficult to laugh at your own history.
It’s very easy -and cheap- to make a joke about ‘the other’, the one that is different from you. But the real challenge, the best humour, is the one that laughs at you yourself as a human being.
I hear you. I will say that I grew up in a–to this day–large, very close family and teasing is our love language. So, I think making jokes about others–when done with an awareness of who they are–is fine. That said, if you can’t make fun of yourself, you shouldn’t make fun of others is one of the Grinnan family rules.
“I assume Cynthia Hand -or the TV producers- will never try to make fun of any episode of the story of countries like India, China or Japan, for instance”— Actually, India, China or Japan and the entire continent of Africa were ridiculed, mocked, satirized for 200+ years by Western European countries in their literature and arts. Even as recent as the 80s, Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom portrayed Indians as grotesque creatures. The movie Slumdog Millionaire, which was a mega hit in the US and won every major Oscar award was a flop in India detested by every Indian. I, having lived in the US for 40+ years actually enjoyed the movie but I could also see why Indians were offended by it.
It’s been lovely to see the rise of Bollywood here in the US.
Bollywood is good for things like songs and dance but it is the parallel and regional cinemas that shine exploring all kinds of themes which bollywood would not touch with a ten foot pole. These films don’t get much exposure in the US. But they are often well recognized in European film festivals like Cannes, Venice, Berlin. This year at Cannes, a movie, an actor and a cinematographer were recognized with awards—something unlikely to happen in the US.
I have been able to watch many Indian films that don’t meet the traditional definition of Bollywood on Netflix and Amazon. I feel as if the US audience has many more chances these days to see the best of Indian cinema.
Agree. With the advent of Netflix and Amazon Prime, there are more choices now.
I have friends who love the series, and I’m curious enough about it to give it a spin of my own.
Go for it – and report back and let us know what you think.
It sounds kind of like Horrible Histories, and while I love those five minute numbers, I don’t think I could take a miniseries mocking the poor girl’s tragedy.
Horrible Histories actually presented historical FACTS in an accessible and often very funny way. This sounds like a total mess and begs the question (yet again) – why not just invent ORIGINAL characters rather than making a total dog’s breakfast of English history (also, yet again).
I think Bridgerton has been VERY influential.
(I’m not English), but your point of view is usually my reaction to some tv adaptations of royal history. In this case however, one can argue that the source material is not the actual history of Jane Grey, but a fantastical adaptation/version of said history & so in that context, I think it kind of works. I haven’t watched the whole thing, just a few clips on YouTube (the people morphing into animals thing is more than I can take) but I think the show is just a ridiculous, over the top escapism. Considering that the world seems to be going to hell in a hand basket, it seems to me that everyone’s just looking for a bit of escapism where they can find it
So true. I don’t think anyone is critical of anyone who enjoys it. It’s just not for Jenna!
This is definitely not mocking a tragedy. The books took three Jane’s throughout history and fiction and adapted their stories to have a different outcome. Jane Grey, Calamity Jane and Jane Eyre. It’s not different than Pride, Prejudice and Zombies
Except that Pride & Prejudice had fictional characters who had happy endings. So I can totally get down for an alt-universe version with zombies in it. Totally fun! This is based on a real person who’s life ended in horrific tragedy by beheading. I’m not saying that you can’t love this show and have fun with it, but for me, the selection of Jane Grey is odd. I mean, Calamity Jane (real person/natural death) and Jane Eyre (fictional person, happy ending) are great subjects as well. I just think they missed the ball on this one.
Dr. Feelgood and I just watched four episodes of The Great and quit. It wasn’t just that it is such an alternative history of Catherine and Peter that I kept getting distracted by the truth of what really happened. The humor combined with the horror was not for us, nor was the over the top farce.
I looked into The Great when I was searching for something to break my watching slump, and while I adore Nicholas Hoult, this one just didn’t catch for me. Sounds like I’m not really missing anything.
I loved the first episode but by the fourth, the show had turned into a hard pass.
I LOVED the Great, mostly for the performances. I accepted it was an alternate world where Peter and Catherine actually liked each other and just went from there.
He was just too awful for me.
I’m halfway through this and I am really enjoying it. I’m very familiar with the original story but I don’t view it as having any bearing on this story. I think some of the humour sounds like it probably works better for me than it has for you also. I will say speaking very very generally (and hopefully I don’t get metaphorically shot for this) that the humour is more of a British variety and this can culturally miss the mark in the US. I lived in the US for five years and found that a lot of British humour went down like a load of bricks with my North American friends and vice versa. I am curious to see if the back half of the episodes don’t work for me given this is where it sounds like it really went downhill for you. So far I’m enjoying it far more than Bridgerton season three that I honestly regret spending time watching.
Having not seen the series, it sounds from these descriptions as if it should be treated like a Shakespeare history play, where the truth is sacrificed for a good story. If you know the history, half of the enjoyment is seeing how it’s been adapted and if you don’t know the history then you can just enjoy a historical fantasy.
The Australian sense of humour doesn’t always travel well, either. And I find a lot of American comedy very unfunny. Probably why some celebrated romance authors leave me cold. Nobody needs to get shot over it; we just like different things.
I will be very interested to hear your feelings when you are finished with the show. I also enjoyed the first few episodes – it’s a lot of fun and steamy in that will-they-won’t-they way. And as I said in the review, the show is not bad at all as far as shows go. But once the last half introduces Jane’s impossible circumstances, I stopped being able to divorce TV Jane from real-life Jane. Please do come back and share your thoughts.
PS – I also felt a lot of disappointment in Bridgerton Season 3, so it looks like you and I have somewhat similar tastes!
My plan is to finish it this weekend so I will definitely check back in once I’m done. I’m really curious to see how I will feel about it
Okay so I’ve finished the season and I agree that the back half was not as much fun as the front half. There is a bit of a tonal shift and I think some of the black humour misses the mark slightly. The actress playing Mary is clearly dialling it up to 11. I still remain unbothered by the historical aspects because to me it is so wildly removed from the real events – the only two aspects that feel truly historic to me are the capriciousness of kings and queens, and the precarious position that many found themselves in at that time. I can appreciate this for the flight of fancy it is but I understand that it very well may not appeal to all.
… so why have they bothered to use actual historical figures at all? That’s my beef (not with you, so I guess it’s a rhetorical question!) If I see a show billed as being about Lady Jane Grey, then I want to see a show about Lady Jane Grey! Not some made up, ridiculous story with no factual basis whatsoever. If you’re going to use actual historical figures then don’t fuck about with them. Invent your own!
I get what you mean, exactly. Why didn’t they take Lady Jane’s basic story – girl finds herself queen unexpectedly and has to deal with politics and the real heir to the throne who is out to get her – and use that as a set up for new characters? Set it up in a fictional world…I mean in this story, people can change into animals so why does it have to be set in 1500s England? You could literally follow Jane Grey’s real life story beat for beat with original characters and who would complain? It makes no sense.
I also think shows like this make the culture stupider about history. No one studies history and if you watch a show like The Great, you come away thinking a set of things are true that aren’t. I’m thinking many do not spend a lot of time fact-checking these fun shows.
Actually, I beg to differ. I do not see why we need to get into a lather over such imaginative fictionalization of historical events. Cinema or tv series are not history books written by qualified historians. They are for entertainment and the only yardstick for such artistic creations is whether they are entertaining. If the show sparks interest in the character or the story, they may actually look up some historical sources to know more. (I do this often.) Lady Jane was minor character but the period in which she lived was extremely important in British history.
I respect your differing opinion!
One man’s “imaginative fictionalisation” is another one’s “complete trashing of my country’s history and culture.”
Well, that’s how you see it! I can see both sides here.
One of my all time favorite books and an NYT book of the year is 11/22/63 by the great Stephen King. In it, he imagines the Kennedy assassination as a cautionary time travel tale. It’s brilliant and well grounded in history but it is still an imaginative fictionalisation. The same is true about my favorite book of last year, The Frozen River.
I think the discussion is around how closely a work of entertainment has to hew to what we know as truth. We all have our parameters–I didn’t like The Great, but Deadwood is one of my all time favorite shows.
The King sounds like something I’d enjoy because it’s well informed alt-history. There is an absolutely brilliant alt-history series set in Tudor England (I’ve reviewed some of the books here) by Laura Andersen, which starts with The Boleyn King. The author clearly knows her stuff, because she manages to include actual events and personages in the stories she weaves about her own, original characters; the premise of the trilogy is that Henry VIII had a son who suceeded him – yet it still ends with Elizabeth I on the throne. I have no problem with that.
But I just don’t see the point of taking an historical figure – whose real-life story is pretty interesting and filled with tragedy – and then just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. If you want to tell a story featuring shifters in Tudor England, it’s fine – just make up your own original characters FGS!!
Again, I think we can enjoy what we enjoy.
That said, I tend to like entertainment that has original characters interacting with real people who are true to themselves. But that’s just me.
Maybe. But the British are not innocent of this. They did plenty of it in the heyday of Pax Britannica. Now it is America’s turn, I guess.
I have to agree with Dabney’s opinion that it makes the culture stupider about history. I can not speak to other cultures, but within the U.S., many people will not look up the actual facts about Jane Grey and what happened. Yet they will feel they know something based on having watched a TV show. This could just be our nation, though. I mean, we have fights about whether to include actual history in our history books or gloss over it to spare people’s feelings so we may just be exceptionally bad at understanding the past.
It’s just like all those people who think the events described in The Crown are real. (I mean the ‘made up for TV stuff’, not the things that really happened!)
Almost everyone in the US believes that The Crown is historically accurate. I’ve never seen it–do they ever do disclaimers?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen one. As far as actual events go, it’s okay – it’s all the other stuff that we can’t know, private conversations etc., the sorts of things historical novelists would fill in to propel drama, that are the things people have trouble separating from fiction. I suppose that because the historical events are accurately represented, many viewers assume the rest must be true, too.
Glad you enjoyed it overall – it’s always fun to find a show that you like (since there is so much garbage out there!).
I enjoyed the season. It claims upfront that it’s a speculative retake on Jane Grey’s life in which she doesn’t get executed. Throw in shapeshifters and we’re definitely in an alternate world. So, no attempt to be historically accurate. The very obvious gallows humor reminds me of Monty Python’s movies. It’s black humor, in which life (and people) can be so awful, all we can do is mock humanity or give up on it. We live in a world where people largely go on about their lives unaffected by current atrocities and serious world problems (war in the Middle East and Ukraine, 80+ mil migrants, human and women’s rights stripped away, climate change, etc.), and many shows are so graphically bloody, we have become inured to violence, so mocking and rewriting (for the better) the fate of a historical figure from the 1550s seems a fairly inoffensive way to experience catharsis. I am hoping for a second season.