The Virgin Queen
Tags: historical fiction

Plot synopsis:
In 1581, Walter Raleigh (Richard Todd), recently returned from the fighting in Ireland, pressures unwilling tavern patrons into freeing from the mud the stuck carriage of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (Herbert Marshall). When Leicester asks how he can repay the kindness, Raleigh asks for an introduction to Queen Elizabeth I (Bette Davis), to whom Leicester is a trusted adviser. Leicester grants the request.
Elizabeth takes a great liking to Raleigh and his forthright manner, much to the disgust of her current favorite, Christopher Hatton (Robert Douglas). As the court ventures outside, Raleigh graciously drapes his cloak (an expensive item borrowed from a reluctant tailor) over some mud so that the Queen need not soil her shoes. At dinner, Raleigh reveals his dream of sailing to the New World to reap the riches there. Elizabeth decides to make him the captain of her personal guard. He enlists his Irish friend, Lord Derry (Dan O'Herlihy).
Meanwhile, Beth Throckmorton (Joan Collins), one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, very forwardly makes Raleigh's acquaintance. Raleigh's relationship with both ladies is stormy. Beth is jealous of his attentions to Elizabeth, while the Queen is often irritated by his independence and constant talk of the New World. Hatton does his best to inflame her annoyance, but she is too clever to be taken in.
When Hatton informs Elizabeth that an Irishman is a member of her guard, Raleigh is stripped of his captaincy when he protests that his friend is loyal and refuses to dismiss him. Banished from court, Raleigh takes the opportunity to secretly marry Beth. Soon after, however, he is restored to Elizabeth's favor.
Finally, Elizabeth grants Raleigh not the three ships he desires, but one. He enthusiastically sets about making modifications. In private, however, Elizabeth reveals within Beth's hearing that her intentions do not include him actually leaving England. When so informed, Raleigh makes plans to sail to North America without royal permission.
Hatton tells the Queen not only of Raleigh's plot, but also that he is married to Beth. Elizabeth orders the couple's arrest. Raleigh delays those sent to take him into custody so that Derry can try to take Beth into hiding in Ireland, but they are overtaken on the road, and Derry killed. Raleigh and Beth are sentenced to death, but in the end, Elizabeth releases them. They set sail for the New World.

Review: 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'.
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.
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 strongest aspect, as I viewed it, was neither the story, the costumes or the scenes, but the bold performance of Anne Marie Duff.
Dudley, portrayed by Hardy, was a good foil; his perhaps son, but certainly step son, Essex portrayed by Hans Matheson, were interestingly cast, not so much by the actors but rather for the dramatic interpretation brought to each character.
It is only bested by the old Bette Davis version of Elizabeth and Essex in spotlighting how the Virgin Queen sought male affection, but rebuffed any control but her own.What burden the Queen, a bastard, a princess, and then a monarch must have endured in her private life, a life often dismissed for her political reign, or exaggerated for her fancy of her childhood friend, Robbie.A most worthy addition to the pantheon of Tudor drama..
A different look at Queen Elizabeth's life.
Retelling a story in history in the framework of film can be tricky business and Masterpiece Theatre's The Virgin Queen doesn't attempt to adhere to accuracy in the slightest.
But, if you're like me, you would love to experience the story of Queen Elizabeth a thousands times over in a thousand ways, and this film richly succeeds in it's own right.I have never seen such accurate costuming, beautiful sets or clever a soundtrack in any Elizabethan film (Oh my God, the soundtrack).
More than many films of this historical powerhouse, I appreciate the attention paid to the human side of Queen Eliazabeth--her vanity, weakness for the opposite sex (considering her royal responsibilities), and infamous indecisiveness.I could have done without the laughably overblown Casa Nova characterization of Lord Robert Dudley (Tom Hardy, ).
He came off as a retired Backstreet Boy, looked far too young for the part, and portrayed none of the cultivated finesse that those familiar with the real man know, in-turn, leaving the audience wondering what about this man is worth the scandal.If you have any interest in a new take of Elizabeth's life since the 1998 film Elizabeth, I truly recommend this mini-series.
For a more historically accurate glance of the time period in England, check out BBC's Elizabeth (1971) starring Glenda Jackson..
Having read the previous comments I would concur with what has been said, but here in the UK this was shown as 4 90 minute episodes, not 60 minutes as inferred in the previous post.I loved everything about this production even down to the usage of the group the 'Medieval Baebes' (who perform mainly medieval AND Tudor/Renaissance popular music) which gave one goosebumps when you think that this music was probably well loved and performed by the real Queen and her courtiers.If you check out the BBC Drama website it gives the background as to how the costumes were made to look in period and yet so modern and also the locations used.
It was quite refreshing to see a British produced history series actually filmed in the UK and not in one of the old Eastern bloc countries as with the Channel 4 'Elizabeth I' and that other history series with Ann Marie Duff playing a character 'Charles II: The Power and the Passion' Well done BBC...it will not surprise me if another BAFTA is not forthcoming for this production.
Australian Cate Blanchett, Helen Mirren and now Anne-Marie Duff have essayed in the last ten years to portray Gloriana on the screen.This version is more watchable, more accessible, more **alive** than any before.
Jeremy Irons looked like he had risen from the grave playing Robert Dudley to Helen Mirren's Elizabeth in that BBC production focusing on her middle years.
The Cate Blanchett movie version tries to portray Elizabeth as a kind of early feminist--a concept that would not exist for many centuries.
Agreed, Dudley seems to age little compared to Elizabeth, who gets older in appearance if not in demeanor.
They in no way detract from the impact of this splendid version of history with its colorful sets, fine costumes, excellent acting and unforgettable musical score..
I'm afraid invidious comparisons are inevitable when two of the four major television channels choose to bring out 'mini-series' on the life of the same monarch within the same year.
Channel 4 succeeded because they cast a middle-aged actress of great experience to portray Elizabeth in her later years.
And the final two episodes felt badly rushed, in particular the decision to gloss over the entirety of Elizabeth's reign post-Essex in the course of a single voice-over, and her death-scene in a few sentences.
There is too much prurient focus on Elizabeth's virginity and very little on the Virgin Queen's real-life record as mistress of statesmanship and manipulator extraordinaire -- she knew how to project herself as larger than life, but the BBC doesn't seem to know how to do the same, leaving the great speeches to fall limply.
This one was something of an anti-climax.Historical accuracy, for all that much-vaunted research, seemed dubious, from Essex's haircut to Queen Mary's death.
However it's turned out to be a festival of historical inaccuracies, anachronisms and above all, poor casting.The death of Mary Tudor didn't take place as was depicted, and in episode one Chancellor Gardiner was shown announcing Mary's death to Elizabeth in 1558, but Gardiner died three years before that in 1555.
Anne-Marie Duff, fine actress though she is, hasn't the fire and authority to play Elizabeth as she should be played.
Jeremy Irons was just right for the part in the Channel 4 production "Elizabeth I" last year.
And to cap it all, they were burned in their best frilly nightshirts!Lazy research by the writer, anachronistic quotes which seem to have escaped the script editor and lines no self respecting actor should have allowed to pass their lips have all combined to make The Virgin Queen a very poor example of a historical drama, which the BBC usually do so well (Charles II was excellent).
You can read the other reviews to see all the debates over the historical accuracy, the choice of Duff as Elizabeth I, and the fact that all we see are movies about Elizabeth and not other interesting choices.
So I've decided to give a review on something a little different...The costumes were pretty accurate for the time period, with some obvious differences in colour choices and the lack of abundance of embroidery (embroidery was a way for people to immediately tell how much money you had and what class you were in - sometimes the wearer would also have their family crest or symbols embroidered as well).
The colours situation is just that back then, the dyes were not as stable as they are now and tended to fade quickly and were not as rich and bright as they were portrayed in here.I have to admit, what kept me going in the second half of the series is the use of make up and effects on the actors.
The vanity of the day is nothing short of today (minus the ability for Botox or anti-aging creams), and they believed their makeup would make them look younger, while today looking at them, it could send children running from the room in terror.If you're looking for something to pass the time, or you happen to be a lover of period pieces, take a looksie at The Virgin Queen.
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.
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.
What would film and TV companies do for historical dramas if Elizabeth I had never reigned?
Nobody's done it for at least 6 months!" This 2005 mini-series although having authentic costumes, delivers nothing that hasn't been told (more accurately and better) a hundred times before in novels, biographies, operas, dramas, documentaries and even historical pageants.In this latest effort it seems that a lot of pieces from the jigsaw that was Elizabeth's life have been lost, and the bits that remain have been haphazardly bunched together to create some sort of patchy biography.
Consequently there's very little flow to the production as a whole, with just a scant look into the inner character of the "virgin queen" in particular.
As for Ann-Marie Duff's speech prior to the Armada battle, I'm afraid she didn't inspire me one iota, (even though she looked a very young 55 yrs as Elizabeth was at the time), and neither did the rest of her somewhat insipid performance.
The real Elizabeth needed to be, and was, made of sterner stuff.Overall the sketchy script is equally uninspired, and is only adequately performed, however if one can watch it without being too critical of historical mistakes, it is in parts enjoyable...that is if you're an ardent Gloriana fan.
This production falls far short of the wonderful Glenda Jackson's "Elizabeth R", albeit even that series now looks a little stagy and dated.I really do think it's time to give "Good Queen Bess" a miss...at least for another six months, maybe even a year.
It has been said that when making a courtly, historical drama, once of the most important things you need is austerity.
I found the direction of 'The Virgin Queen' to be unsubtle, totally lacking in any poignancy and solely aimed at creating an over-the-top, unsophisticated sense of melodrama wherever and whenever.As for the acting - with a part like Elizabeth I, comparisons between this and other performances of the Queen are inevitable, yet Anne-Marie Duff, who by her own admission had a rather shaky knowledge of the subject beforehand, somehow decided it would be best not to view other performances, wanting to 'portray the part for myself', which unfortunately (for the rest of us) wasn't that good.
Although I don't think Duff was the right choice for Elizabeth anyway, her performance would have been greatly improved if she'd looked at what other actresses had done.
When I was little I watched bits of 'Elizabeth R' and was totally enchanted by Glenda Jackson.
In contrast, when watching this, I felt disappointed by Duff's weak, lacklustre performance.Thinking about the drama as a whole, it's fair to say that the effort went into it.
I actually thought there were some really cool lines, although most of these were wasted on Duff who, having not done enough research, delivered them badly (eg, when Elizabeth plays with language in front of the Spanish ambassador).'The Virgin Queen' is a BBC production and I watched it with high expectations.
I preferred it to Elizabeth, and Elizabeth the Golden Age, as they were exploiting a very interesting part of English history, particularly the Tudor Period.
Dudley Elizabeth's love of her life was NOT actually portrayed during/after Tilbury properly, he went on to govern her forces in the Netherlands for some years.
The Earl of Essex, well Errol Flynn was a better actor in looks admittedly, but again, he was portrayed or characterized less romantically than in other films, that I feel was justified.But I as a student of this period feel it was OK, dragged a bit sometimes but I would recommend it to a history student, that I wouldn't with others who have tried to make a saga out of Elizabeth 1.
But this TV mini series and Elizabeth as portrayed by the actress given this part was very good.
If you've seen Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth in the Oscar-winning movie and the great Helen Mirren as Elizabeth in the recent HBO film, it is easy enough to dismiss Anne-Marie Duff and all of "The Virgin Queen" as a distant third in the competition.
Nonetheless, I thought Duff acquitted herself quite well, especially as the younger Elizabeth, and this BBC production may actually do a better job of recreating the period than the other two.
In my opinion, the HBO production is the best of the three, mainly because of Mirren, but also because it is given more time to explore the history of the period than was afforded the Blanchett film.
They've managed to take what was one of history's great stories add a pretty impressive cast and then through a masterful mix of dumbing down, historical inaccuracies, cringe worthy attempts to make it "current" and what can only be described as generally 'hammy' execution throughout made this an absolute pig of a show to watch.It's like a history of Elizabeth I for the Simon Cowell generation.
Especially Duff makes a very good and at times a very realistic Elizabeth.
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.
There are many films and dramatisations of the life of Queen Elizabeth I, which is understandable as she was/is one of the most interesting monarchs.
After outstanding offerings such as the 1998 'Elizabeth', 'Elizabeth I' with Helen Mirren', 'Mary Queen of Scots' and especially 'Elizabeth R', 'The Virgin Queen' was somewhat of a disappointment.Certainly not bad, as there are a lot of impressive things.
For starters, 'The Virgin Queen' looks wonderful.
If there isn't an album for the soundtrack that is a shame, because if there is a music score of a TV series that deserves one it's that for 'The Virgin Queen'.Some great scenes here too, especially the stirring Tilbury speech and the blistering confrontation between Elizabeth and Mary Queen of Scots.
Anne Marie Duff is a miracle in the titular role and succeeds in making Elizabeth a complex, which she was, and easy-to-root-for character.
Joanne Whalley, despite the one-dimensional way Mary Queen of Scots was written (writing her as somewhat of a pantomime villain was rather extreme on the writers' parts), is similarly outstanding.Hans Mattheson brings passion, charm and loyalty as Essex, and Michael Feast and Robert Pugh despite being present only for a short amount of time register highly too as does authoritative Ben Daniels as Walsingham.
Tom Hardy is too young, overwrought and too much of the prissy and wimpy Casanova sort of character, while Dudley was underwritten in 'Elizabeth I' there was much more complexity and finesse in Jeremy Irons' interpretation than Hardy's.
It is also distractingly anachronistic, trying too hard to attract to younger and modern audiences by taking simplicity to extremes and it all sounds too modern and more like how we'd speak now rather than back then.Am really not trying to use historical inaccuracy as a criticism here and felt reluctant too, but some of the liberties really do scratch the head and suggest poor research rather than accommodating dramatic license, sadly while with some great scenes the storytelling is not consistently compelling enough, likewise with a lot of the characterisation, to overlook this.On the whole, 'The Virgin Queen' has many areas where it excels, but others are wanting and quite badly.
Anne Marie duff easily makes the best Elizabeth and looks the most similar to the paintings!