The Virgin Queen (2005)

Priming up to teach Renaissance history I've looked into just about every Elizabeth I movie around--from Bette Davis to Helen Mirren. I endured the dry Glenda Jackson series for its historical perspective, enjoyed the brief comedic overacting of Dame Dench in Shakespeare in Love, totally skipped Cate Blanchett's version due to the reviews openly praising this Hollywood take on known history.As to this newer version, I couldn't bear to finish it, and I usually don't quit movies. The editing seemed to delight in snatches, rendering this as apatched together series of Elizabeth commercials. The lighting was dark, which didn't help. Robert Dudley was portrayed as being way too young. He should have been reserved for the Earl of Essex part. There were other aspects I didn't care for, but the Robert Dudley part needed to be more nailed down seeing how important he was to Elizabeth's reign.Helen Mirren's version to me presents the most personable, the one that really brings out the personage of the queen. The politics in that version were more defined as well. I don't understand why the BBC thought to try and trot out another version of Elizabeth I when so many exist already. Aren't there any other monarchs worth looking into?

The charter of masterpiece theater is simple: provide the viewer with a richer experience than usual. Intelligent cinema isn't part of this precis, nor is compelling drama (whatever that means), and in cases like this, even effective history.That's still okay with me in theory, because a key thing I look for is getting lost in the shape of the thing. The problem with Masterpiece is that lushness to them means good enough in all categories except sets and costumes. Nothing else is supposed to exceed the norm, apparently in a deliberate strategy to not overwhelm the visuals. This isn't Zeffireli's notion that you create a lush place and then occupy it with the camera, moving and discovering.No, this is simply a buffet table of color and texture and we are suppose to help ourselves. The "story" isn't integrated in, its just an excuse: royalty, richness, assumed importance. So I have to warn most of my readers off of this; its offensive in a way, mere artifice, not a real film.As history, it fails down a bit too. Too bad, because this is the period when English was born and became the worlds largest (in terms of words) and most flexible language. It was in large part a deliberate plan by Elizabeth (and apparently Burleigh). And it was the era where the Catholic Church, surely an evil institution then, had its back broken by the notion of enlightenment — the very idea of knowledge.And it was when the decision was made (mixed with wealthseeking) to colonize the New World with the new notion of discovering the "magic" therein, which happened to be a cosmos not centered on the Jesus of church dogma. So there's lots in this period to be mined. John Dee appears in only one scene, Harriot not at all. You have to make the story simple it seems, so we have essentially a love story, two actually, the second being someone credibly suspected as her son.Seeing things like this help you understand just why you come to films. If all you need is color, this might satisfy. Otherwise, you'll find it alarmingly protestant.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

This is a very interesting programme, produced in Britain and originally shown on the PBS series, Masterpiece Theatre.This miniseries was directed by Coky Giedroyc, a veteran of television productions in Britain, including another royal-themed miniseries, 'William and Mary', in 2003. Giedroyc brings an interesting modern twist to the series - rather than filming things in majestic, sweeping camera pans with classical music as a background, and rather than having the dialogue (and acting) be in a stilted, falsely formal style, Giedroyc incorporates modern music with medieval and Celtic flavouring to it (both of which have experienced a renaissance of sorts in the past decade), and the situations are decidedly modern without being out of place in their own times.This presents the life of Elizabeth from her young adulthood under Queen Mary, as a supposed participant in intrigues against the Catholic Queen, through to her death after serving decades on the throne of England as the Virgin Queen, the queen who never married. In fact, the miniseries plays a tantalising game with Elizabeth's virginity, showing her desires (as well as those around her) without ever giving up the game of 'was she or wasn't she?' Anne-Marie Duff plays the part of Elizabeth, and does a remarkably able job for such a complex figure. Duff won the Irish Television award and was nominated for the BAFTA award for best actress in a television drama in another series, 'Shameless', last year.Duff is joined by Tom Hardy, who plays the role of Robert Dudley, the favourite of Queen Elizabeth. Dudley is also an extraordinarily complex role, as he played several sides in the political struggles during Elizabeth's early reign, and was part of a family well experienced in regal intrigue - Robert Dudley's family had tried to manage the reign of Elizabeth's brother Edward, engineer the accession of Lady Jane Grey (placing Guildford Dudley on the throne with her), and is sometimes referred to as 'the uncrowned kings of England'. In fact, perhaps the most stunning single scene in this miniseries is after Elizabeth has elevated Robert Dudley to the earldom of Leicester, and during her illness, he sits upon the throne as the protector of the realm. Hardy is well suited to this role, and plays it with skill.The sets are appropriate to their time period, neither too ornate nor too medieval; the costumes also have a touch of modernity to them, but are still primarily of the period. The situations presented give good insight into the overall pattern of Elizabeth's reign and some of the principal concerns during that time period, although to compress such a long reign into such a short time frame as a four-hour miniseries by necessity means that the history has had to be selectively chosen. Elizabeth faced problems from without and within, many of which were far more complex and pressing than her marriage issue. In the end, Elizabeth made the right decision for the time, if not for the future.This is a great production for television, and holds up well against other major productions featuring the Virgin Queen Elizabeth of a few years ago.

The authors disagree with most conventional histories of Elizabeth in small but significant elements. The most important was their portrayal of Amy Dudley's death as a suicide, since the cloud her death left over Robert Dudley affected his relationship with Elizabeth for the rest of his life. They portray Lettice Devereaux as a scheming vixen, Mary of Scotland as being framed for conspiracy against Elizabeth, the Earl of Essex as a manic-depressive, and portray Elizabeth as seriously intending marriage when most evidence shows she was shrewdly playing suitors against each other to benefit England. On the other hand, many of the intriguing and baffling elements of her reign are accurately presented, including her intelligence, her scheming to survive her sister Bloody Mary's reign, her vanity, her tendency to blind partiality towards her favorites, and the astonishingly poor military ability of those favorites. Rather engaging story and will hold the interest of those not familiar with Tudor England, but seriously disappointing to those of us who think the story supported by historical documentation is enthralling enough.