這個一個惹人憎的反派角色亨利八世，讓理查德伯頓在70年得到奧斯卡提名，但再次落空——《安妮的一千日》里的亨利八世。

首先這是個女主戲，男主的定位就是個女主的陪襯，正確地履行導(dǎo)演的意圖的方式就是不能喧賓奪主突出個人光彩。

亨八是個渣男，然而他在簽署處死安妮的命令時卻有大段的猶豫徘徊的臺詞。如果伯頓真要把他演得對女主余情未了那完全是小菜一碟，光他那雙眼睛就能演出讓觀眾深信不疑的深情無限。

簽署命令時

因為他是一個自帶憂郁深情屬性的，有一種滿面愁容之美的男人，當(dāng)初在《埃及艷后》第一次和泰勒演對手戲時，泰勒就被他的這種氣質(zhì)所俘獲。所以說，要他演真情很輕松，讓他演假意反而需要他動用演技。

然而他實際上演得聲情并茂地念著為安妮開脫的臺詞時卻透著一股子做作的虛假，讓人一看就知道亨八是在做戲。注意，不是伯頓在做戲，是伯頓的角色在做戲。

這是因為亨八的定位是個虛偽殘暴自私卑鄙又喜歡推卸責(zé)任歸咎于人的渣男。如果伯頓想要討觀眾喜歡，那完全可以自我發(fā)揮成對安妮一往情深卻被奸臣蒙蔽而痛心疾首的樣子，然而他沒有，因為亨八的存在根本是讓觀眾厭憎的，他不能違背劇本的設(shè)定。

再說安妮被砍頭的時候倫敦塔敲起了喪鐘，聲音傳到遠方的山坡上，亨八正帶著一群侍臣貴族們穿著獵裝原地駐馬等待結(jié)果。

在聽到鐘聲敲響余音不絕的過程中，亨八騎在馬上抬頭遠眺。

這一幕他雖然沒有什么表情，但眼神似乎有一絲悵然和若有所思的意味。這一刻我甚至懷疑他會對殺死安妮有一點悔意，或者想起昔日和她的美好戀情。如果伯頓真這樣演，倒也可以給亨八挽回一絲觀眾的諒解。

駐馬遠眺

喪鐘響起

鐘聲結(jié)束

然而他并沒有，他微微抬起下巴，保持了一位君主的上位者姿態(tài)，威嚴而傲慢。

下一刻他露出了釋然且淡然的表情，態(tài)度陡然一變，轉(zhuǎn)頭命令臣子們跟他去他最新一任情婦簡西摩家里玩。接著一馬當(dāng)先，一路頭也不回地馳騁而去，除掉他厭倦了的舊愛，現(xiàn)在他又開始追逐下一個獵物了。

相信所有觀眾看到這里，都會對他這個毫無悔意的冷酷渣男徹底厭憎了吧？

嗯，正因為達到了這個效果，伯頓就圓滿地完成了他所應(yīng)該做到的表演目的。如果真的是奔著拿獎去演的，他完全不需要用這種方式來自斷觀眾緣。

“我一直不明白伯頓為什么要這么做，與任何女演員結(jié)婚都會令人苦惱。我不知道和一個比你更富有更有名的女星或女人結(jié)婚的滋味，這一點，是我永遠無法忍受的?！?——肖恩·康納利 ”伊麗莎白對理查德的女主角的妒忌要比理查德對她的男主角的妒忌更甚。與其說是因為她害怕他會撲向她們，不如說是某個咄咄逼人、野心勃勃的女演員會撲向他，試圖取代她在迪克和麗茲媒體傳奇中的位置。” ——羅德·斯泰格爾 “伊麗莎白·泰勒不想被取代。她知道，伯頓也知道，她已經(jīng)把他從一個英國明星提升為國際巨星。但現(xiàn)在，如果他離開泰勒，他可以把一個名不見經(jīng)傳的女演員捧成明星，或者把一個明星女演員捧成巨星?！?——作家馬文·瓊斯 “伊麗莎白在理查德的《安妮的一千日》中客串一個龍?zhí)捉巧脑蛑皇撬矚g打扮，她穿戴著都鐸式服裝和頭飾看上去棒極了。另一個因素是她可以在片場盯著理查德，更具體地說，盯著年輕的女主角詹妮薇芙·布卓。這位法裔加拿大女演員在好萊塢還沒有成名?！?——西恩·菲利普斯，演員，彼得·奧圖爾的妻子

A Tudor costume saga diligently sensationalizes the folie-à-deux of King Henry VIII (Burton) and Anne Boleyn (Bujold), the queen he falls in and (a thousand days later) out of love with, one vacuously succumbs to his hardened promiscuity and the fixation of begetting a male heir, whereas the another tragically falls victim of her own delusional abuse of power.

Hardly as operatic and opaque asAnthony Harvey’s THE LION IN WINTER, the movie doesn’t mince words in depicting the outrageous predisposition of Henry VIII, a horny, spoilt, reckless, cold-blooded pig might be quite an apt description if one can pay no heed of lèse-majesté and Mr. Burton’s rendition is competent more than somewhat, drumming up his sonorous rhetoric with blistering confidence (he acquired his penultimate Oscar nomination), but overtly and uncompromisingly, he is shy of any trace of compassion in portraying a famous monarch, which may deter even the most devout monarchist to concoct rational excuses to his inexcusable wantonness and callousness, a stratagem doesn’t seem to be out of sync with the makeup of the movie’s targeted audience.

On the other hand, we have the Canadian Francophile actress Geneviève Bujold in her first English-speaking film, a career-making opportunity which earned her an Oscar nomination, her Anne Boleyn is a much complicated character than Henry VIII, her metamorphosis from a headstrong ingénue to a queenship-coveting hard-liner strikes home through the agglomeration of her implacable gaze and intractable ferocity (she only relents when she becomes love-struck, a tangible human touch never materializes in Henry’s front), to a point we feel impelled to rally our antipathy to let her be answerable for the ongoing persecutions (both religiously and maritally), and in fact, there is only one man who has the power to allow all those things to happen, that is how good Ms. Bujold’s performance is, not to mention her Tower of London monologue, her resounding delivery is quite an unparalleled showstopper in almost every aspect.

The Greek goddess Irene Papas (although miscast for her ethnic looks), brings about ample poignancy as Queen Catherine of Aragon, and British thespian Anthony Quayle circumspectly treads the board as Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, a piteous prey of a king’s whims but also eloquently registers that vice is never devoid within his consecrated remit, another Oscar-calibre feat shouldn’t go unnoticed. But the same merit cannot be related to John Colicos’ Thomas Cromwell, a peripheral but important character marred by Colicos’ repugnant haughtiness.

Directed byCharles Jarrott with due mettle and moxie, ANNE OF THE THOUSAND DAYS might be a worthy period drama gallantly grappling with unsavory subjects such asadultery, incest and illegitimacy, but in this day and age, its uncritical overtone jars bytesting one’s moral line in the sand, even Anne’sprophetic revenge of a gyneco-sovereign doesn’t really pay off in the end of the day.

referential point: Anthony Harvey’s THE LION IN WINTER (1968, 6.2/10)