Elizabeth I, Part II
Apr. 30th, 2006 10:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperxWell, I finally got to see Part II of Elizabeth I and I have to say that I think it rather disappointed me. I had quibbles with the historical accuracy of Part I, but the gist of it was fine. On the other hand, I found Part II to be somewhat inexplicable. Really, why so easy on the Earl of Essex? It was like they took much of his paranoia seriously and the Cecil's were shown as being shady, when in fact, with history, it seems as though he was unjustly maligning both the younger and the elder Cecil. While the Cecils and Essex were opposing political factions, the Cecils never really seemed to do anything particularly underhanded (other than oppose him). While Essex blamed Cecils for everything that happened to him. The Cecils were sometimes ones to calm Queen Elizabeth's ire or actually counselling her to allow Essex to go to war.
Also, they kept making all of Elizabeth's reservations about Essex going to war seem to be nothing but her being possessive of him, when in fact it was far more complicated than that. She rather knew him to impetuous, reckless and heedless. Also, the fact is most of his military victories were at least as much (if not more) due to Sir Walter Raliegh as they were to Essex, and the movie COMPLETELY ignored Raliegh's existence. Also she wasn't just sending Essex away to Ireland. He'd been presuring her to give him that post then pitched a fit after she actually did (he did draw a sword on her in the council meeting, though. And I'm not sure. I'd have to look it up, but I think he also slapped her. If he had been anyone else, he would have been imprisoned then and there.) Then they overlooked much of the mess he made in Ireland where he got most of his soldiers killed without doing ANYTHING, not to mention the plots he made with Tyrone (with implications of his overthrowing the queen and setting himself up as Lord Protectorate). They also left it open to interpretation whether he really had actually been scheming with King James, when there's no doubt about the fact that he was.
Then they made Sir Francis Bacon look more duplicitous in his actions with Essex when, while he wasn't the most loyal friend ever, it was mostly Bacon realizing that Essex was getting himself into a shitload of trouble that Bacon wanted no part. Bacon was actually far more politically astute than Essex (and Essex was damned and determined not to listen to any advice about caution and overly high ambitions).
Plus, the script seemed to leave it far more open to interpretation whether Essex was actually traitorous when --whoo-boy, was he traitorous! There's tons of evidence of his doing everything primarily to set himself on the throne in one form or another. It wasn't the Cecils maligning him (as the movie left that as a possible interpretation) He actually did these things.
Also, while giving the impression that he was spoiled and arrogant, they really didn't show just HOW obnoxious a spoiled brat that he was. They didn't portray his tendency to throw tantrums at people and his tendency to sulk and claim sickness whenever he was thwarted in anything. And they certainly didn't try to show that by the end he had periods of time where he was basically bug-shit crazy.
This production seemed so focused on trying to make it some sort of inappropriate love story, where Essex always loved Elizabeth and Elizabeth was inappropriately sexual with someone 33 years younger than herself. While certainly she loved Essex, there's no indication of anything remotely sexual between them (unlike what was shown in the movie). Most historic interpretations is that while she always demanded the fawning "love" from her male courtiers and Essex was no different, and while she genuinely loved him, her feelings were closer to motherly in that she viewed him as someone she loved (beyond reason) and protected and whose will she could be bent to, but not that he was a TRUE romantic affiliation or that there was ever any consideration of him being her husband.
All in all, this production seemed to have lost track of actual history, which is a shame because history was so interesting in and of itself.
In the big scope of things, I also think that the entire production made Elizabeth too soft and too much the stereotypical "blinded by her emotions--silly" woman, when in fact she was far more shrewd than that. And, it wasn't in the way that the movie had her sort of taunting Essex. She would punish Essex but it was almost in a motherly vein of trying to make him understand what was acceptable and not acceptable behavior. One comment of the real Elizabeth, when she refused to renew Essex monopolies was that it would perhaps be more kind if he was broke because then he wouldn't have the money to ruin himself (with his treasonous plots... which is understandable considering it was his treasonous plots which got him killed.) She saw through Essex's ploys (and it wasn't the vague paranoia that the movie made it look). And she wasn't just some flightly woman easily swayed by people. She had a pretty solid line between personal and civic. Personally she would forgive him much, on a civic level he had little power or influence with her. She always but ALWAYS trusted the Cecils judicious, moderate, cautious advice over EITHER Robert Dudley or the Earl of Essex, both of whom were schemers.
The whole confrontation at the palace with the barrier and the shooting of the poor little boy groom was fiction. The barricade was at Charring Cross, not at the palace. Essex never made it to the Palace. And he was captured while hiding out in his own home. So it was just a complete fabrication on the writers part that in a weird way made Elizabeth look more vicious than she was and made Essex look more heroic (taking care of the little boy) than he really was (trying to run away).
Also they never really acknowleged the fact that Elizabeth had many favorites. It wasn't only Essex that she would allow to get away with too much and who she was angry when they married. They completely glossed over Essex boughts of feigned illness (which I've seen portrayed as either his trying to manipulate Elizabeth or -- as in "Queen Elizabeth, The Virgin Queen" turned into a rather convincing case that Essex was either manic depressive or bi-polar (either of which would fit quite comfortably with the actual facts because, it's generally agreed upon that while in Ireland he completely lost his mind, became paranoid in the extreme. He had to be somewhat deluded to make his plot in the first place).
All in all, while I give credit to the production the casting where the actor actually kind of looked like Essex, I found Part II to be more fiction than history and rather annoying in both its portrayal of Essex and Elizabeth. While certainly Helen Mirrin's aging Elizabeth looked far more realistic than Ann Marie Duffs, I give "Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen" a better review both in it's portrayal of Elizabeth and it's historic accuracy. While all productions play with the facts, EtVQ version was far closer to the fact that E1, Part II.
The HBO/Channel4 production was certainly lush, but IMHO the BBC/PBS production was flat out better.
Then again, I'm opinionated.
Also, they kept making all of Elizabeth's reservations about Essex going to war seem to be nothing but her being possessive of him, when in fact it was far more complicated than that. She rather knew him to impetuous, reckless and heedless. Also, the fact is most of his military victories were at least as much (if not more) due to Sir Walter Raliegh as they were to Essex, and the movie COMPLETELY ignored Raliegh's existence. Also she wasn't just sending Essex away to Ireland. He'd been presuring her to give him that post then pitched a fit after she actually did (he did draw a sword on her in the council meeting, though. And I'm not sure. I'd have to look it up, but I think he also slapped her. If he had been anyone else, he would have been imprisoned then and there.) Then they overlooked much of the mess he made in Ireland where he got most of his soldiers killed without doing ANYTHING, not to mention the plots he made with Tyrone (with implications of his overthrowing the queen and setting himself up as Lord Protectorate). They also left it open to interpretation whether he really had actually been scheming with King James, when there's no doubt about the fact that he was.
Then they made Sir Francis Bacon look more duplicitous in his actions with Essex when, while he wasn't the most loyal friend ever, it was mostly Bacon realizing that Essex was getting himself into a shitload of trouble that Bacon wanted no part. Bacon was actually far more politically astute than Essex (and Essex was damned and determined not to listen to any advice about caution and overly high ambitions).
Plus, the script seemed to leave it far more open to interpretation whether Essex was actually traitorous when --whoo-boy, was he traitorous! There's tons of evidence of his doing everything primarily to set himself on the throne in one form or another. It wasn't the Cecils maligning him (as the movie left that as a possible interpretation) He actually did these things.
Also, while giving the impression that he was spoiled and arrogant, they really didn't show just HOW obnoxious a spoiled brat that he was. They didn't portray his tendency to throw tantrums at people and his tendency to sulk and claim sickness whenever he was thwarted in anything. And they certainly didn't try to show that by the end he had periods of time where he was basically bug-shit crazy.
This production seemed so focused on trying to make it some sort of inappropriate love story, where Essex always loved Elizabeth and Elizabeth was inappropriately sexual with someone 33 years younger than herself. While certainly she loved Essex, there's no indication of anything remotely sexual between them (unlike what was shown in the movie). Most historic interpretations is that while she always demanded the fawning "love" from her male courtiers and Essex was no different, and while she genuinely loved him, her feelings were closer to motherly in that she viewed him as someone she loved (beyond reason) and protected and whose will she could be bent to, but not that he was a TRUE romantic affiliation or that there was ever any consideration of him being her husband.
All in all, this production seemed to have lost track of actual history, which is a shame because history was so interesting in and of itself.
In the big scope of things, I also think that the entire production made Elizabeth too soft and too much the stereotypical "blinded by her emotions--silly" woman, when in fact she was far more shrewd than that. And, it wasn't in the way that the movie had her sort of taunting Essex. She would punish Essex but it was almost in a motherly vein of trying to make him understand what was acceptable and not acceptable behavior. One comment of the real Elizabeth, when she refused to renew Essex monopolies was that it would perhaps be more kind if he was broke because then he wouldn't have the money to ruin himself (with his treasonous plots... which is understandable considering it was his treasonous plots which got him killed.) She saw through Essex's ploys (and it wasn't the vague paranoia that the movie made it look). And she wasn't just some flightly woman easily swayed by people. She had a pretty solid line between personal and civic. Personally she would forgive him much, on a civic level he had little power or influence with her. She always but ALWAYS trusted the Cecils judicious, moderate, cautious advice over EITHER Robert Dudley or the Earl of Essex, both of whom were schemers.
The whole confrontation at the palace with the barrier and the shooting of the poor little boy groom was fiction. The barricade was at Charring Cross, not at the palace. Essex never made it to the Palace. And he was captured while hiding out in his own home. So it was just a complete fabrication on the writers part that in a weird way made Elizabeth look more vicious than she was and made Essex look more heroic (taking care of the little boy) than he really was (trying to run away).
Also they never really acknowleged the fact that Elizabeth had many favorites. It wasn't only Essex that she would allow to get away with too much and who she was angry when they married. They completely glossed over Essex boughts of feigned illness (which I've seen portrayed as either his trying to manipulate Elizabeth or -- as in "Queen Elizabeth, The Virgin Queen" turned into a rather convincing case that Essex was either manic depressive or bi-polar (either of which would fit quite comfortably with the actual facts because, it's generally agreed upon that while in Ireland he completely lost his mind, became paranoid in the extreme. He had to be somewhat deluded to make his plot in the first place).
All in all, while I give credit to the production the casting where the actor actually kind of looked like Essex, I found Part II to be more fiction than history and rather annoying in both its portrayal of Essex and Elizabeth. While certainly Helen Mirrin's aging Elizabeth looked far more realistic than Ann Marie Duffs, I give "Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen" a better review both in it's portrayal of Elizabeth and it's historic accuracy. While all productions play with the facts, EtVQ version was far closer to the fact that E1, Part II.
The HBO/Channel4 production was certainly lush, but IMHO the BBC/PBS production was flat out better.
Then again, I'm opinionated.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 03:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 09:35 am (UTC)And yeah, they totally made Essex much more likeable and charming than the total loony he was in RL. If anyone deserved to go to the block it was him.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 02:56 pm (UTC)And, really, it's somewhat outrageous that they left Sir Walter Raliegh out entirely. Essex had a big court rivalry with him and Raliegh was at least as much (if not more responsible) for the political victory that led to Essex's fame. Yet, Raliegh isn't even shown. At least not such as I remember which means they really weren't crediting him with the importance that he actually had in Elizabeth's life and reign at that time.
I mean, all movie historicals play with history to some degree. I remember reading the PBS boards during Elizabeth The Virgin Queen, and there was plenty of bitching. But, for me, there are differences in what is and isn't acceptable hinkying around with history. No production can cover everything, so some things being left out make sense. It's just are you leaving it out due to time constraints or to recast the story in a different direction? And one of the biggest complaints on the PBS version was the anachronistic score which I thought "Big, fat deal" Yeah, EtVQ had a soundscore clearly using modern 21st century music, but it's not like anyone is going to mistake that the real life had a constant sound score. That's the TV part of it. Also there were gripping about how modern people looked, which, yeah isn't historically accurate yet I found defensible. The Earl of Essex actually sort of was the equivalent of a fan idolized rock star in his time period. So it makes sense to present him in that sort of light. It helps in the way it presents a comprehensible context to the viewer. So while not 100% historically accurate, it is essentially accurate. Whereas with this on, Elizabeth 1, they seem to have wanted the 'love' story (such as it was) to take so much precedence they were willing to rewrite history to get it.
It's interesting to watch, but it does annoy in places. (Essex is way cuter in the E1 production, though).
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 03:08 pm (UTC)Anyway, while I enjoyed some of the speculation in EtVQ, I was rather annoyed by the manipulation of Helen Mirren's Elizabeth I. I think they totally missed the mark with the Essex/Elizabeth relationship, and the Dudley/Elizabeth relationship has been done better in other productions.
This one was lush with beautiful sets, costuming, and a budget for crowd scenes, but I agree that EtVQ is just better. I bought the DVD of that one. I won't be buying the DVD of this one.