First off, I must say that 'Elizabeth' is very entertaining. I own the DVD and have watched it several times. The dialogue and the characterizations are done very well -- as long as it's understood that this is a complete work of fiction.
Cate Blanchett does great work as Elizabeth I in what must be Bizarro World: this Elizabeth doesn't want power, refuses to go against her scruples and attend Catholic Mass on her sister's orders, gets played by the men around her, falls onto the throne almost accidentally, and (sort of) fires Cecil. She is betrayed by Lord Dudley and humiliated by an effeminate Duke of Anjou. What a load of manure, although it is interesting to see that the British can butcher their history almost as badly as we Americans do ours (and theirs, too, for that matter).
In reality, Elizabeth's true story is more compelling, in that she suffered no one to pull strings except her, unless it became mortally dangerous to do so. Elizabeth had a marvelous political instinct, one borne out of sheer necessity, and one her sister never had. She carefully acquired estates during both her brother's and sister's reigns, leveraging them to cement loyal support from powerful families. She played a highly dangerous game with her sister, keeping her mollified just enough with showy attendance at Chapel Royal Mass and parrying Mary's attempt to marry her off later in Mary's reign to a Habsburg. On the verge of losing her head for treason more than once, she showed a remarkable talent for prevarication and obfuscation, all the while preparing in real terms for her own rule as Queen.
From the historical record, we know that Robert Dudley had been a serious suitor for Elizabeth, who at one point -- well after she was Queen -- had made it clear that she intended to marry him. As shown in the movie, this scandalized the nobility, not because of some treason on Dudley's part, but just because there were already many rumors about their (supposedly) disreputable behavior together. For political reasons, she scotched the courtship, but Dudley remained a close confidant at court. Her romance with the Duke of Anjou came much later, when Elizabeth was in her late thirties or early forties, and she was as determined to marry Anjou as she once was to marry Dudley. However, her Council was violently torn on the question, which infuriated Elizabeth, but as always she bowed to political reality and sent Anjou home with some lovely parting gifts. And the part about Cecil is just remarkably silly. Cecil was her life-long partner in ruling England, and while I'm sure their relationship had its ups and downs, there is no doubt that he was not only devoted to her, he was one of Elizabeth's main props for power.
Anyway, apart from a few other minor issues, such as Mary Tudor's portrayal (think Snidely Whiplash, no subtlety whatsoever), the movie is pretty entertaining, a good costume drama. It's just annoying that the film industry can't do research when they want to make historical movies. Is there no responsibility for at least attempting some accuracy? Or is it their intention to promote historical illiteracy?
Cate Blanchett does great work as Elizabeth I in what must be Bizarro World: this Elizabeth doesn't want power, refuses to go against her scruples and attend Catholic Mass on her sister's orders, gets played by the men around her, falls onto the throne almost accidentally, and (sort of) fires Cecil. She is betrayed by Lord Dudley and humiliated by an effeminate Duke of Anjou. What a load of manure, although it is interesting to see that the British can butcher their history almost as badly as we Americans do ours (and theirs, too, for that matter).
In reality, Elizabeth's true story is more compelling, in that she suffered no one to pull strings except her, unless it became mortally dangerous to do so. Elizabeth had a marvelous political instinct, one borne out of sheer necessity, and one her sister never had. She carefully acquired estates during both her brother's and sister's reigns, leveraging them to cement loyal support from powerful families. She played a highly dangerous game with her sister, keeping her mollified just enough with showy attendance at Chapel Royal Mass and parrying Mary's attempt to marry her off later in Mary's reign to a Habsburg. On the verge of losing her head for treason more than once, she showed a remarkable talent for prevarication and obfuscation, all the while preparing in real terms for her own rule as Queen.
From the historical record, we know that Robert Dudley had been a serious suitor for Elizabeth, who at one point -- well after she was Queen -- had made it clear that she intended to marry him. As shown in the movie, this scandalized the nobility, not because of some treason on Dudley's part, but just because there were already many rumors about their (supposedly) disreputable behavior together. For political reasons, she scotched the courtship, but Dudley remained a close confidant at court. Her romance with the Duke of Anjou came much later, when Elizabeth was in her late thirties or early forties, and she was as determined to marry Anjou as she once was to marry Dudley. However, her Council was violently torn on the question, which infuriated Elizabeth, but as always she bowed to political reality and sent Anjou home with some lovely parting gifts. And the part about Cecil is just remarkably silly. Cecil was her life-long partner in ruling England, and while I'm sure their relationship had its ups and downs, there is no doubt that he was not only devoted to her, he was one of Elizabeth's main props for power.
Anyway, apart from a few other minor issues, such as Mary Tudor's portrayal (think Snidely Whiplash, no subtlety whatsoever), the movie is pretty entertaining, a good costume drama. It's just annoying that the film industry can't do research when they want to make historical movies. Is there no responsibility for at least attempting some accuracy? Or is it their intention to promote historical illiteracy?