Flawed, yet still wonderful

Rating: 8/10 (27 August 2008)

When watching this film, as with many historical dramas, I have to 'turn off the historian part of my brain', which would rather like to scream at times. Although I love this movie, and have since I first saw it, I must agree with a number of the reviewers on this site who have pointed out the numerous historical inaccuracies.
Elizabeth I herself is superbly portrayed by the truly marvellous Cate Blanchett, who totally inhabits the role. However, the real-life Elizabeth was far more politically savvy and personally dominant than the somewhat easily-influenced queen of this film. The awarding of 1999's Best Actress Oscar was a crime against Blanchett, whose work in this film far surpassed Gwyneth Paltrow in the much lighter Shakespeare in Love.
Her supporting cast are almost uniformly superb, from Joseph Fiennes to Christopher Eccleston to the almost-movie-stealing Geoffrey Rush. The latter turns in a truly wonderful, Machiavellian turn as Francis Walsingham; had he not also richly deserved his Oscar nod for Shakespeare in Love, this performance would have been worthy of a nomination. Allowed off his leash by Elizabeth towards the end of the film, he faces off against Eccleston as the treacherous Duke of Norfolk: "I must do nothing by your orders. I am Norfolk." "You were Norfolk. The dead have no titles...You were the most powerful man in England. You could have been greater still, but you had not the courage to be loyal." "So cut off my head, and make me a martyr. The people will always remember it." "No. They will forget." Absolutely brilliant.
The cinematography and set pieces are glorious, bright, colourful. In this respect, the filmmakers capture the essence of the Tudor court, its pomp and ceremony.
However, if it is historical accuracy you look for in a film, do not look for it here. The film conflates certain characters, meaning that they behave totally differently from their real historical counterparts. For simplicity's sake, it seems, the Duke of Norfolk who lived in Mary's reign and put down the Wyatt rebellion (dying shortly after) is mixed with the character of his grandson, who conspired with Mary Queen of Scots to depose Elizabeth, marry Mary and ascend the throne as her consort. Additionally, Elizabeth's first real love, Robert Dudley, later Earl of Leicester, seems to have been confused with a later favourite, his stepson Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. While Leicester was indeed beloved by the queen, both of them were well aware that nothing could come of it. Elizabeth knew of his wife (in the film she finds out from Cecil) from the date of his wedding, and although historians will never agree on whether their relationship was ever physical, the mysterious death of Amy Dudley meant that there was never the slimmest chance of them being anything more than the lifelong friends they were. In the film Leicester conspires against the Queen, while in life he remained faithful unto death, forming part of her group of staunchest male supporters, along with Cecil, Walsingham and Hatton. It was Devereux who plotted against Elizabeth, and he was beheaded for it. The other major discrepancy is the character of Cecil. Although extremely well played by Attenborough, he is far too old in the film. Cecil was Elizabeth's greatest adviser until his death in 1598, when his equally brilliant son took over his role. He is sidelined too early in the reign according to the film, as well as appearing far more feeble in comparison to Elizabeth than he really was.
In fairness to the filmmakers, they do not claim that this is a true historical account of the early years of Elizabeth's reign, and as I said above, I cannot help but enjoy the film, as long as I do not focus on the errors! Great camera work, wonderful acting, brilliant dialogue - everything else you could need for a great film are here, so perhaps in the scheme of things historical accuracy is not the be all and end all...