MM Video: The Virgin Queen

MM Movie Review: Elizabeth

There have been few films such as the celebrated 1998 bio-pic "Elizabeth" which are as brilliant as they are atrocious. As filmmaking goes, "Elizabeth" deserves every honor it was given and certainly Cate Blanchett was deserving of her Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in her role as the "Virgin Queen". However, "Elizabeth" also deserves to be known as yet one more contender for the position of the most horrific excuse for a historical film ever produced on the Tudor era of England. It is a very competitive field (even before television got into the act). How can I say this without sounding too hysterical? Well, put it this way: history is thrown out the window, run over by a truck and then stomped on. Get the idea?

The story is certainly an attractive one. It follows the young Elizabeth, starting in the final days of the reign of her sister Queen Mary I (who, as usual, is ugly and villainous less modern Brits fail to recognize her), following her through her own reign as she faces constant harassment from Scotland, France, Spain and even the dastardly Pope while dealing with a stressful romance with the Earl of Leicester. The problem is certainly not in the acting, which is superb. The cast contains some of the best in the business, masters of their craft and even a living legend or two. The characters are interesting, deep and well done in every way aside from the occasional cartoonish villain but these are pretty much restricted to Catholic clergy so everyone else, hero or villain, is in pretty good shape.

Catte Blanchett is Queen Elizabeth I, the young innocent who must overcome and find her inner strength; Geoffrey Rush is Sir Francis Walsingham, the unscrupulous, loyal, bisexual spymaster and secret police chief; Christopher Eccleston is the imperious, duplicitous and finally traitorous Duke of Norfolk; Joseph Fiennes is the tempestuous, lusty and frustrated Earl of Leicester, Sir John Gielgud appears as the murderous Pope (Pius V, I presume) and Lord Richard Attenborough is the faithful, fatherly and stressed Sir William Cecil. So, again, it is a superb cast and they have a truly epic period of history to work with, tailor-made for great filmmaking. As a film, it is lavish, dramatic, gripping, visually stunning and immensely entertaining. As anything even pretending to be history it is absolutely insulting to the name.

I knew I was in trouble as soon as I saw the opening scene: the wicked Catholic Bishop Gardiner having some saintly Protestants burned alive for heresy on order from "Bloody Mary", who is herself depicted as a vile, raving tyrant. In fact, the records show Mary I was the least of all her dynasty in having people executed. Moreover, Bishop Gardiner had no one in his own diocese executed, had opposed the Queen marrying Philip II of Spain and was generally considered a moderate. However, the historical lies in this movie are far too many to record every one. The Earl of Leicester is shown frolicking with Elizabeth at the start when he should have still been in the Tower for treason. The Duke of Norfolk is shown as one of Elizabeth's earliest enemies in a Catholic conspiracy, which he was not. His anti-Elizabeth actions came much later in the plot surrounding Queen Mary Stuart, and he was always vague about his religion but never declared himself to be anything other than an Anglican. In fact, he is shown urging Queen Mary to have her sister killed to keep her off the throne when, in truth, Mary was not thrilled with the thought of this herself and was persuaded to allow Elizabeth's succession only by her husband, King Philip II of Spain (who, again, is portrayed as a horrible villain so as not to confuse the Brits).

Keep up, there’s more. William Cecil is portrayed as an elderly and ready to retire statesman when in fact he was a robust, young man when Elizabeth came to the throne. Sir Francis Walsingham is depicted as a scheming, murderous homosexual whereas, while certainly scheming, he never killed anyone himself and was a happily married family man and a devout Protestant - certainly not a homosexual. The Duc d'Anjou is shown as a bizarre, cross-dressing pervert whom Elizabeth finds abhorrent, yet another fabrication. In fact, the Duc d'Anjou never came to England and the Queen was quite taken with him and considered him very seriously to be her husband or at least pretended so to annoy the Spanish. There is also at least a possibility that the romance with Lord Robert, Earl of Leicester was never sexual, and Elizabeth may well have been a 'real' "Virgin Queen". I tend to doubt it and in these day and age it seems positively unbelievable but, in fairness, I have to say that a case can be made for the Queen being as good as her title.

Leicester was also certainly not involved with any kind of plot against the Queen, nor was there a great falling out between the two, and contrary to the film, his marriage was a well known fact at court and Elizabeth met with him many, many times before her death. (let me catch my breath) It is also untrue that Leicester ever had affairs with the Queen's ladies-in-waiting, whom she kept a close eye on and no one ever sent the Queen a poisoned dress. The plot at the center of this film also never happened in anything like the way it was portrayed. It seems the filmmakers simply took all of the schemes against Elizabeth, invented some intrigue of their own, and put them all together, stuffed them in a blender and hit “mix”. Much of it seems to be connected to the historical trap set for Queen Mary Stuart, yet, she is never seen or mentioned in the film.

Who is mentioned is her regent, the Queen Mother of Scotland Marie d'Guise, played by the captivating Fanny Ardant. The part was, to me, one of the most interesting of the film and Ardant gives a spectacular performance of an intriguing character. Yet, fond as I am of devious, warrior-queens, there is no truth in any of this. Queen Marie d'Guise was no scheming zealout, never a threat to England (though Protestant England was certainly a threat to her) and it is a total fabrication that she was poisoned by Sir Francis Walsingham after a night of passion. Marie d'Guise died of natural causes while trying to reconcile the feuding Scots. At the time of her death, she bore no resemblance to the character on film. Instead of Fanny Ardant's attractive, mature woman look, imagine an older, heavier woman with swollen extremities and a case of dropsy. I'm a fan of Marie d'Guise, but as much as I would rather picture her as seen in the movie, it is simply not accurate. Not at all.

However, the film as a whole, as good as the look of it was, that look was totally inaccurate. Most of the sets look like they should be in a movie about the Middle Ages rather than Renaissance, Tudor England. The palaces all seem dark, dank, dreary (insert dungeon-like metaphor here). That may do for scenes in the Tower of London, but the court of Queen Elizabeth lived in much more splendid and cheerful mansions and palaces. The dingy, Gothic sets have about as much to do with Elizabethan England as the assassination attempt on the river barge (yet another fabrication).

Believe it or not, I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Still, I cannot overstate how much talent was shown in this movie, and how entertaining it was. Yet, as excellent as it was in the art of cinema it was absolutely horrific in the history department and paints a distorted view of the Tudor era and Queen Elizabeth. It opened with a lie and, fittingly enough, ended with one as well: although it is a powerful scene, Elizabeth did not start wearing white makeup and portraying herself as the statue-like "Virgin Queen" until well into the latter part of her reign. Oh, the humanity...

Today in English History

It was on this day in 1559 that Elizabeth I became "Queen of England, Ireland and France", thus starting the famous Elizabethan Era of English history, romanticized ever since as a golden age of English greatness. I say "romanticized" only because it was, and still is, not to take anything away from the great accomplishments of her reign. Very few English monarchs have had such a lasting impact on England and Great Britain as a whole than Queen Elizabeth I. To be sure, the odds against her were great in many ways. That she became queen at all is somewhat remarkable given the circumstances. At a time when a queen regnant was an extremely unusual thing, consider also that she was the younger daughter with a brother and an older sister before her, her father, King Henry VIII, had her mother be-headed and she was of such questionable birth that at one point her own father declared her illegitimate. Obviously this would not seem to be the background of someone destined for monarchial greatness. She inherited a country that was religiously divided, surrounded by hostile powers and whose most recent military campaigns had ended in failure. Hardly the stuff of which world powers are made.

Consider also that, during her reign, she did many things that would cause most any other monarch to be dismissed as a total failure. Starting from a position of friendship she managed to tick off the most powerful nation in Western Europe at the time, supported rebel forces (even republican ones) against the lawful monarchs, had a fellow queen put to death (setting a dangerous precedent for that family), she failed to ever marry and secure the succession by producing legitimat offspiring (which especially at that time was considered probably the first and foremost duty of any monarch) and she suffered one of the most humiliating English defeats at the hands of a rebel army in Ireland. Not looking good is it? She was also vain, jealous, spiteful and, possibly worst of all for a ruler, extremely indecisive. And yet...and yet...she was great. England beat the odds, put down the first roots of a global empire, humbled the mightiest powers in Europe, experienced a flowering of art, music and literature all under her reign to the point that even her most bitter enemies could only stand amazed at what she accomplished.

The Elizabethan Era

It was on November 17, 1558 that Elizabeth I, of the House of Tudor, became “Queen of England, Ireland and France”. There was a time, years ago, when I was a struggling university student pepped up on classes in British literature, Tudor history and the like that my admiration for “Good Queen Bess” was so complete as be approaching idolatry. Because of some personal changes and deeper studies my opinion has certainly modified since then. “Good Queen Bess” was not all that good to certain peoples and segments of society nor was she responsible for most of the great achievements of the Elizabethan Era. In fact, she was a quite indecisive ruler who tended to put things off until they resolved themselves or someone else resolved it for her. She was also quite irresponsible as a monarch in many ways, particularly in her refusal to secure the succession by either marrying and having children or naming an heir to the throne. There was also the execution of Mary Queen of Scots which I, as a monarchist, have a huge problem with and the trial and execution of one sovereign monarch by another is not something I am going to ever get past. Trust me.

Now, having said all of that, Queen Elizabeth I still must stand out as one of the most significant, effective and success monarchs of England. She was a woman of great political instincts, great determination and was one of the greatest monarchs ever, in my opinion, when it came to mastering the public image of monarchy. If the almost divine image of the “Virgin Queen” is not completely accurate the Queen still deserves a great deal of credit for putting that best possible image forward and making it stick. If every monarch were so talented in the area of public relations republicans would positively be an endangered species if they exist at all. Some have attributed this to post-Elizabethan writers embellishing the accomplishments and popularity of Elizabeth I, and that may be true to some extent, but it is certainly not the whole truth. The abilities and accomplishments of Elizabeth I were widely recognized in her own time and even by her enemies. The Pope famously said that if only Elizabeth I were Catholic she would be their “most beloved daughter” and noted that while ruling only half an island she had made herself feared by France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. She was evidently doing something right.

Above all, Queen Elizabeth I was a very pragmatic ruler. On the religious question she was not known for firm convictions. Before coming to the throne she had declared herself a Protestant and a Catholic depending on who held power. She was always opposed to the more extreme Protestants yet she recognized that it was the anti-Catholics who were her base of power and so she was certainly never going to be friendly toward the Catholic Church. There were terrible persecution of Catholics though it was not as bad as it could have been. In the area of politics she was also more practical than principled. She supported Protestant rebels in Scotland to keep the pro-French regent and queen there in check, she supported the Dutch against the Spanish to keep Philip II occupied and supported the Protestants in France for the same reason. Her support for the ‘English Sea Dogs’ against Spanish shipping also helped thwart a powerful enemy without a direct confrontation. The defeat of the Armada was a pivotal event in English history and while she may not have been directly responsible for that, in as much as she would be blamed if the Armada had succeeded she deserves credit for its defeat. She opened trade with the Muslim world, sending arms to Morocco, as a way to support their war against Spain and she sent the first English ambassador to the Ottoman Empire who were at that time almost constantly at war with the Empire. For a time she even considered a military alliance with the Turks against the Spanish but nothing ever came of it.

It was during the reign of Elizabeth I that there also first came to be complaints over various methods of the Crown for obtaining funds without the support of Parliament which led to some problems. However, the Queen was very adept at dealing with this problem with a speech to Parliament that played on emotions, protesting her ignorance of the corruptions that existed and of her boundless love for her people and her country. This was no long-term solution and as we know the problem would arise again and again after Elizabeth was gone, coming to a head under Charles I. This, in a way, relates to the only negative aspect of the Queen’s mastery of public image and public relations. The devotion was to her personally, Gloriana, the iconic embodiment of England and English greatness and as happens this meant that such loyalty was not focused on the monarchy and would not carry over to her successor. This was exacerbated by the fact that there was no Royal Family to speak of and the only potential successor was the King of Scots at a time when suspicion of all foreigners had been purposely aroused. The precedent set by the trial and execution of Mary Queen of Scots would also have severe repercussions later on as well.

Again, I have serious “issues” with Queen Elizabeth I and yet her significance cannot be denied and regardless of how one feels about her, Elizabeth I was obviously a queen of exceptional talent. Under her reign England again became a country that mattered after years of decline since the latter years of Henry VIII. Under her England mastered the sea, undermined Spanish power in such a way that Spain would decline and England would rise on the world stage as well as gaining a valuable lead on the French by playing off factions against each other. Her enemies could not help but admire her and even many of those she had executed went to their deaths pledging their loyalty to her. She embodied her country in such a way that her Protestant subjects all but worshipped her and even her Catholic subjects rallied to her against the Armada. She left England, if not the monarchy, stronger than she found it and left a legacy that no other British monarch has ever matched.

MM Video: Queen Elizabeth II

Cinematic Royal: Jordi Molla as King Philip II

From my own experiences the film “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” has elicited extreme reactions from everyone save the critics, most of whom shrugged it off as blunt and lackluster. Others, however, either adamantly love it or hate it with few feelings in between. For those who love it, the primary motivation is the English triumphalism on display and the very sympathetic portrayal of Queen Elizabeth I, one of, if not the, most celebrated monarchs in English history. However, I want to take a minute to look at the part of the villain of the movie; King Philip II of Spain.

In short, I thought the role was atrocious. Catalan actor Jordi Molla was given the part and played it well (he is a talented actor which few would deny) but the figure on screen had seemingly nothing in common with anything we know about Philip of Spain. The casting of Molla seems an odd choice. I have often heard that, an actor must have sympathy for his character, even if a villain, to play the part well. In this case, based on the interviews he gave, Molla seemed to have nothing but contempt for his character and that seems to show on screen but is also, perhaps, not surprising coming from a liberal actor who does not seem to have much respect or affection for the two things that King Philip loved and respected above all else on earth; namely Spain and the Catholic Church.

Philip II is portrayed as such a one-dimensional character as to be downright cartoonish. Flanked by whiskery monks and constantly clutching a rosary he creeps about his castle alternating between shouts and whispers calling his enemy a “whore”. He shrinks back from sunlight and is ever in the shadows and always dressed in black. Designed to be the picture of a religious radical he is constantly using the words of a crusader but takes his spiritual direction from a candle in his room; if it burns calmly upright God is pleased but if it flickers God is angry. Obviously it would not take an extremely intelligent person to realize that simply shutting the windows would ensure everlasting Godly favor using this method of divination!

Then there is the numerous historical inaccuracies, made, I suppose, to simply add to the villainy of the character, but all quite untrue. Philip was not flooding England with assassins and the whole myth of murdering priests has really become tiresome and should be put to rest. Even when something accurate is shown; such as the extent to which Spain was deforested to build the “Invincible Armada” one wonders whether this was done for the sake of accuracy or simply as another way of vilifying Philip II by portraying him as being an anti-environmentalist! On the whole, even if their aim was to make Philip look as evil as possible they still failed. The portrayal was so simplistic, so one-dimensional that he comes off looking more silly than truly threatening.

The movie was meant to be a glorification of Elizabeth I of England and fair enough. But it should not be necessary to slander the name of Philip of Spain to glorify Elizabeth of England. Consider if the shoe were on the other foot? For Spain, the reign of Philip II was their “Golden Age” to a large extent and at least somewhat today and certainly before the wave of liberalism and secularism crashed in Spain the memory of King Philip II was honored just as much and as fervently by the Spanish as the memory of Elizabeth I is in England.