Historically inaccurate portrait of the early reign of Elizabeth I of England

Rating: 5/10 (24 February 2005)

I was a big fan of the BBC series, "Elizabeth R," starring Glenda Jackson, so I was intrigued to see how this movie was going to portray Elizabeth's reign. What I found was a dark, violent, and ultimately inaccurate portrayal of one of my favorite periods of history.
The movie covers Elizabeth's treatment under her half-sister, Mary's reign, her subsequent ascension to the throne upon Mary's death, and the early years of her reign. Information about these people and events is readily available from a number of sources, so one wonders how Michael Hirst managed to put together such an inaccurate portrait of this period. Mary Tudor was not the doddering old fool she is portrayed as here, even though most of her actions as queen were misguided. Neither was Elizabeth as uneducated in the ways of court as she is presented to be. And while Dudley was certainly a favorite of Elizabeth's she never slept with him (there is a reason she was called "the Virgin Queen" after all). Also, she knew him well when they were in the tower together during Mary's reign. She knew he was married. It was what saved his life. Her "discovery" of this fact wouldn't have been a shocking betrayal because there was nothing to discover. Likewise, he would never have plotted against her. He knew where his bread was buttered. Walsingham was a trusted adviser, but not the only one Elizabeth could turn to, nor was he the murderer he is made out to be in this film. And Cecil left her service for his own reasons, not because she tired of him and banished him.
Visually, the film is quite dark. Many scenes take place at night, or in secluded places shut away from the light. Even those in the daylight have a furtiveness about them that gives the whole film an element of paranoia which is quite distracting. While the violence is true to the times, it is excessive, and we could live without seeing the beheading.
The cast does a good job with the material they are given. Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth is a bit naive, but still charming. Joseph Fiennes' Dudley is charismatic. Geoffrey Rush's Walsingham is a cipher, as though Rush were unsure whether to portray Walsingham as trustworthy or menacing, and ended up doing neither very well. Christopher Eccleston's Norfolk bristles with evil and menace. Lewis Jones' murderous priest is so over the top that you can't wait for him to get his. Also over the top, although far more entertaining, is Vincent Cassel's Duc d'Anjou. Fanny Ardant strikes the right balance with her portrayal of Mary of Guise. Richard Attenborough's Cecil is quite noble.
Clearly Hirst sacrificed accuracy for entertainment's sake. He did have some success in this, as it is an entertaining film. But if you really want to learn about this period, get the first two episodes of the BBC series "Elizabeth R," and watch those. They present a far more accurate picture of the beginning of the Elizabethan period.