It’s certainly good looking, but is a visual feast sufficient to sate the appetite when watching a film supposedly telling of an actual episode in history? We all know that history is a highly speculative medium, but my own feeling is that historical dramas should at least have their bedrock in known facts, and any speculation should be credible.
Too much of the plot of Elizabeth was clearly designed for style, drama and convenience, and some bits were notably fraudulent. Sir Walter Raleigh, for example, is shown as playing a central role in the battle against the Armada, when in fact he played no part at all. The film also depicts Fotheringhay Castle as Mary Stuart’s home among the mountains and lochs of western Scotland (they used Eilean Donan as the exterior location.) Fotheringhay was, in fact, a castle on a low mound in the middle of a village in central England, and she was only sent there at the end of her life to be executed. There was absolutely no need to tell this lie; it served no creative purpose whatsoever. So why do it?
Should any of this matter, one might ask. Maybe not, as long as we accept the proviso that in watching a supposedly historical drama we should be careful not to credit it with too much relevance to history. Personally, I think that’s a shame, since the sole purpose of studying history is to learn about the human condition. It seems ironic that drama is credited with the same function, and I dislike the idea that drama should abdicate that responsibility by turning history into relatively shallow entertainment.
And as a postscript, I should also add that I wasn’t overly impressed by most of the acting performances. For me, the only three powerful performances came from Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush and Abbie Cornish, ironically all Australian actors. I thought they deserved something better.
5 comments:
I had enjoyed that film, but now that I know the business about Raleigh and Mary Stuart's castle, it irritates me. I don't really understand why this is done. Funny how there's a trend in film to be more scrupulous in dramatizing novels (compare new versions of Jane Eyre for example, with older ones) than actual history. I suppose the industry is wise about where they can fool us..
I loved the first one MUCH better and the second one as you've written about left a feeling of "is that all there is?" Cate. B and Rush are two of my fave. actors as well and I think it was the fault of the director to want to make everything over the top. Have you seen the first movie? Also have you seen "The Queen" with Helen Mirren? I thought now THAT was authentic, even though I've never met HRH and it just moved smoothly.
Della: I think 'historical' films simply need to be clear and honest about what they are - a telling of history (as far as it's known) or a fictional tale loosely based on historical characters. It seemed to me that this one was effectively the latter masquerading as the former. I gather, for example, that there's no evidence at all of any sort of 'relationship' between Elizabeth and Raleigh. And yet it was central to the plot.
Wendy: I did enjoy the first one much more, partly because it seemed historically more accurate, but also maybe because it wasn't so lavish. I wonder how many times I muttered 'What's the betting this didn't happen?' No, I haven't seen The Queen, although I gather it's regarded as superb. My problem is that I find the royal family something of a turn-off! I also suspect that the depiction of them was based on the cosy, received view which I'm not convinced is entirely accurate. I would love to be a fly on the wall of Buckingham Palace.
Oh no, Jeff, the movie "The Queen" was not at all cozy and warm, just the opposite. Helen Mirren played the Queen with just as much frostiness yet retaining an insight to see the humanity and struggles she has. Definitely worth the watch.
I was thinking more of the cosy, warm attitude people have towards the royal family, Wendy.
Let's put it this way. If there really are 'unsavoury' aspects to the royals, no public film or documentary would ever be allowed to depict them. Whether some of the pronouncements by ex-royal household staff are true or not we shall never know. It's just that I dislike the idea of only being allowed to see the 'acceptable' stuff handed to me as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Whether there really are darker elements, I have no way of knowing so I make no judgement. But the fact I wouldn't be allowed to know them makes me inately suspicious. It's all to do with my love of openness.
Post a Comment