MovieChat Forums > Vanity Fair (2004) Discussion > George Osbourne, Can anyone explain?

George Osbourne, Can anyone explain?

posted 15 years ago by iseepinkelefants
10 replies | jump to latest

Was he in love with her, was he jealous, or did he just dislike her because he saw himself in her (afterall he was no better than her, obsessed with soceity)? I really didn't get him. Maybe it's better explained in the book?

I applaud Rhys-Meyers though, he was good in his part. I've never been able to stand him since. This is the first film I noticed him in and every film I've seen of his since, I find him loathsome. Which sucks because I'd love to see the Tudors, but my dislike of him and that fact that he looks NOTHING like Henry, would just ruin one of my favorite historical figures.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all

[–] randommovies2002 15 years ago

You should try to see the 1998 miniseries, it portrays George (and the entire story) so much better than this version.

In the mini, and in the novel, George snubs Becky because she isn't good enough company for Amelia or himself. The Osbournes have come up in the world, while Becky has not. Becky is a nobody and destined to be a lowly governess. George also immediately sees the games she's playing with Jos, Amelia's brother. He doesn't want an upstart like Becky for a sister-in-law. She would be a "bad connection."

Later, after Becky marries Rawdon and is raised up in the world, he's attracted to her. And since he sees through Becky, he knows that she's a goldigger, opportunist, immoral, etc. so he makes the assumption that his advances toward her will not be rebuffed. But Becky expertly leads him on, which only makes him more and more infatuated with her. (The more she holds him off, the more he wants what has been denied him.) What starts out as lustful desire later becomes almost an obsession for him, which is why he finally invites her to run away with him.

But Becky isn't really interested in him because he can't offer her anything. One should not doubt that if George had had a title and money of his own, she would have been all over him!

[–] iseepinkelefants 15 years ago

Thanks.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all

[–] MidniteRambler 15 years ago

"that fact that he looks NOTHING like Henry, would just ruin one of my favorite historical figures. "

I don't see him as that distant from Henry in his younger days. They could have given his hair a bit of an orange tinge but apart from that he seems okay to me in the series. The problem with The Tudors is that it has very little to do with reality and takes too many liberties with the history, not that JRM is too dissimilar to Henry.

(Anyway, Henry II is much more interesting).

[–] iseepinkelefants 15 years ago

Not only was Henry a red head, he was also extremely tall (JRM is like 5'4?), very atheletic (strong and broad) and exteremly handsome. JRM is tiny, skinny and for me at least, lacks the kind of presence Henry would have had (by all accounts).

I also read some interview the other day where JRM basically says he refuses to gain weight or even wear a fat suit because of his vanity.

Maybe weight gain isn't such a good idea, but I can't respect someone who has no respect for the person they're portraying. He was fat, so fat he had to have a pulley system to get him out of bed in the morning. It's also one of the reason's for his increasing insanity. Not playing the person as he was is cheating the audience because I'm willing to bet most people don't know much about Henry VIII (most Tudorites refuse to watch because of all the inaccurices), so they probably don't understand how an accomplished, intelligent renaissance man turns into this paranoid, psychotic tyrant. I'm not saying the weight gain was the only reason for this but it had an effect on his mental health and behavior.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all

[–] MidniteRambler 15 years ago

I think Mr Meyers is just shy of six foot. He certainly didn't appear short in this series.

I have to confess that although my knowledge of the Tudors is relatively slight, even I was rolling my eyes at various points during the first series and my opinion ofthe series was so low that I did not watch the second series. It was pretty poor. I can't see any excuse for Meyers not to wear a fat suit to represent more accurately the character he is portraying. Sounds like an odd decision but is in keeping with the standards of accuracy prevalent in the rest of the production.

Henry VIII did have considerable presence and charisma and was admired across Europe for his athleticism and renaissance credentials, acknowledged even by the pope. I don't know when he began to deteriorate - presumably after the death of Jane Seymour. The best portrayal of Henry that I've seen was by Robert Shaw in A Man for All Seasons; he was electrifying. It's a good film but cast Thomas More in a fairly sympathetic light.

Henry II is still far more interesting.

[–] iseepinkelefants 15 years ago

You're right, he is 5"10 (as stated on his page). He seems so much shorter to me.

I have been meaning to see "A Man for All Seasons". I had a history teacher who was in love with Henry (sort of weird seeing as how he died so long ago) but she would recommend movies for us to see for extra credit. When she put up the list when we were studying the Tudors she had like 15, lol. But Man for All Seasons was one of her favorite pics, so I'm sure it's more historically accurate than other portrayals.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all

[–] MidniteRambler 15 years ago

Not knowing you I do not know whether you would like A Man for All Seasons so I hesitate to recommend it, but it is brilliant from the first moment to the last. But it is fiction. Thomas More was a religious zealot and Schofield plays him as more kind hearted than I think he was. But the film is outstanding and once seen never forgotten. The Schofield version is superior to the Charlton Heston version, which is itself very good.

Of course I'll tell you that The Lion in Winter is a better film still.

[–] Ilario1 15 years ago

This is the first time I ever laid eyes on JRM and thought he was the most handsome thing in the world.

But as to your first question, his feelings for Becky changed as he came to know her. At first she was just a "governess" and was not up to standards. He really had a high opinion of himself being that his family was of the merchant class. The mini-series explains some of things a lot better than the movie.

But when Amelia and George were invited to dinner, he found out just how alluring Becky was and starting getting the hots for her.

And the Tudors is a real treat imo. RhysMeyers may not look like Henry the 8th but he is playing the role with so much swagger and sex appeal I can hardly stand it. The first and second season with him and Anne Boleyn had me burning up, lol. But I guess it's not for everybody.

[–] angelosdaughter 14 years ago

I watched a couple of episodes of "The Tudors" and I couldn't stand Rhys-Myers. Then I saw him as George Osborne in this movie and I was convinced he has one acting range:glowering adolescent. He basically played the same person in the miniseries and "Vanity Fair". I don't see anything in him at all. To me he looks like a moody teenager, and he is not physically imposing.

[–] randommovies2002 14 years ago

I quite agree. I enjoyed his portrayal in Bend it Like Beckham, but everything I've seen him in since then he has played (cringe-worthily) way over the top.