I am no man's Elizabeth! (Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen discussion))

I thought I'd begin a discussion about one of my favourite movies, because I just saw that there will be a sequel also directed by Shekar Kapur and starring Cate Blanchett, called "Golden Age." So I'm hoping people will talk about the potential for that (I personally don't think "Elizabeth" needs a sequel) and about the first film, what you liked or didn't, about how gender is discussed, about the historical accuracy question, and any other comments that people might have.

Thanks!

Kat

 

Elizabeth was a great film. Yes, it modifies history a bit here and there. My mother majored in history, focusing on Tudor England, and when she watched the movie she kept saying, ?that?s not quite right!? But she liked the movie, and its rare that she likes movies about that time period because she can?t stand to see all the history go wrong. The story itself is great fun, in part because it does stay mostly true to how it happened.

I?m a big fan of the direction. It had one of the most incredible palettes of any film that I?ve ever seen, and fantastic sound. It brought 16th century England right to life for me. The acting was good to great ? Blanchett in particular was right on the whole time.

The real Elizabeth I was one of the greatest monarchs ever to hold a throne, and the film does credit to her.

 

Thanks for your reply, Raven!

Yeah, I agree, the more I learn about the Tudors and Elizabeth, the more I see how this film, if it does play around a bit with events, remains so absolutley true to the spirit of the times, and who she was.

Some of Kapur's choices were slightly odd (Mozart's Requiem?) they do make sense, really, if you think about them. A very interesting director, with a coll perspective, I think, who was very careful to be realistic in his portrayal of the time period. The acting is exceptional, too. Cate Blanchett is very impressive in this role.

Yeah, Elizabeth I is a fascinating person, and figure to me, as well.

 

A few questions raised by this film (having recently rewatched it meself after several years):

• For instance, is there any historical evidence to suggest that Walsingham was involved in the death of Mary of Guise?



• A major part of the movie centers on the relationship between Dudley and Elizabeth. However, while Dudley ends up in the doghouse because of his secret marriage, nothing is mentioned of the suspicious circumstances of his wife's death. As well, Dudley is implicated in a plot against Elizabeth's life. There's no evidence to suggest that he was ever involved in any such conspiracy. For a time I thought the director had simply combined the lives of Robert Dudley and the Earl of Essex.



• Was the Duc d'Anjou truly a cross-dresser? (Actually, it's one of the funnier parts in the movie, so who cares.)

Not a *great* movie, albeit a worthwhile one. But if you do happen to see it, it might be wise to check your history and any Catholic sympathies at the door.

 

Thanks, Leto, for your reply!

I'll try to answer your questions, let me see:

Definitely not, on the first one. She wasn't murdered that we know of, and anyway, Walsingham was very much a bureaucrat/diplomat/pencil pusher than anything else.

Yeah, that was one thing that there was a bit of liberty with the historical accounts, yeah.

Well, I heard it suggested that the duke was a bit "continental", that is a bit strange and effeminate in the reckoning of a Brit. But I don't think he was much of a comic relief device IRL, mainly because he was one of the two men that Elizabeth actually loved in her life and would have considered marrying.

I'd agree, sort of. I mean, the film is meant to be an interpretion, and if you keep that in mind, that it isn't meant to be a history in the strict sense, it helps. And I think it did a great job of establishing that Elizabeth NEVER persecuted anyone for their faith. The people she punished were punished not because they were Catholics, but because they were a significant power base aligned against her, and events forced her to be harsher than she wished to deal with the threat - to herself, to her throne, and to the stability of her nation. Though they could have stressed more how Elizabeth found fervent Protestants and radical Reform clergy just as bad, and mistrusted them just as much, as she had ample reason to do, that I agree would have been slightly more balanced.

 

Has anyone else heard about the sequel to "Elizabeth" ?