Benefit
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2002
- Messages
- 5,193
Released by HBO and Channel 4 in 2005/2006, this 4 hour mini-series chronicles the last 20 years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. It was nominated for 13 Emmys and won 9, along with 3 Golden Globes. Helen Mirren, with her penchant for playing English monarchs, stars in the title role. The mini-series hits on many of the major points of Elizabeth's later reign including her relationship with Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester and his stepson, the Earl of Essex; the execution of Mary Queen of Scots; the English defeat of the Spanish Armada; the Duke of Anjou's courtship and Elizabeth's last chance to marry for love or otherwise. It is historically very accurate and only rarely takes liberties with historical fact for dramatic purposes.
It's clear that most of the budget was allocated for costuming, which was amazing. You can tell in the scenes requiring large crowds that they just didn't have the budget for more than a hundred extras. The set design was not on par with the costuming, but still relatively good. They just didn't have the money for lavish, expensive sets. Curiously, they chose to film in Lithuania (probably for cost reasons); there was no location shooting in England proper which is unfortunate.
The casting is good. Jeremy Irons plays Lord Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester; Ian McDiarmid is William Cecil, Elizabeth's oldest and most trusted adviser; Patrick Malahide plays spy master Francis Walsingham. Malahide's Walsingham isn't as compelling as Geoffrey Rush's in the 1998 Elizabeth film, but it is more historically accurate so it's a trade off.
Taken as a whole, I found the mini-series to be mediocre. The costuming was good, the historical accuracy was nice and the acting was good. But Helen Mirren failed to really impress me; her Elizabeth is subject to illogical rages and bouts of hysterical crying (both of which the real Elizabeth probably also succumbed to). Clearly, they wanted to show Elizabeth the steely monarch and Elizabeth the woman. But I don't really care that much about Elizabeth the woman. I think it's boring. The fact is, she had to sacrifice her womanhood in the interest of the state and this can be showed without all the hysterical crying; Judi Dench's portrayal of Elizabeth in Shakespeare in Love now seems to have been just right. She played it at just the right pitch; there isn't even a hint that she feels sorry for herself because of lost loves.
I think in this case the mini-series may have been hurt by its adherence to historical fact. English historian Jasper Ridley wrote, "There must have been something about Elizabeth which won them over but which we cannot easily grasp today - her charm, her courage, her charisma, her magic - which fascinated her subjects and their descendants for twelve generations." I think this is true, and in that sense Helen Mirren's Elizabeth is a success because I found the character very unlikeable, probably because of her realism. She didn't line up with my idealized notions of Elizabeth the legendary monarch. And to be fair, for all its historical accuracy, the producers laid the love story arc on pretty thick. There's no evidence to suggest Elizabeth and the Earl of Essex were lovers or even came close; she probably had more sentimental admiration for him as Leicester's stepson.
Ultimately, this HBO production is not bad but at almost 4 hours it drags quite a bit and I would say that unless you have some kind of academic interest in the history of Elizabethan England, you might want to pass on it.
It's clear that most of the budget was allocated for costuming, which was amazing. You can tell in the scenes requiring large crowds that they just didn't have the budget for more than a hundred extras. The set design was not on par with the costuming, but still relatively good. They just didn't have the money for lavish, expensive sets. Curiously, they chose to film in Lithuania (probably for cost reasons); there was no location shooting in England proper which is unfortunate.
The casting is good. Jeremy Irons plays Lord Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester; Ian McDiarmid is William Cecil, Elizabeth's oldest and most trusted adviser; Patrick Malahide plays spy master Francis Walsingham. Malahide's Walsingham isn't as compelling as Geoffrey Rush's in the 1998 Elizabeth film, but it is more historically accurate so it's a trade off.
Taken as a whole, I found the mini-series to be mediocre. The costuming was good, the historical accuracy was nice and the acting was good. But Helen Mirren failed to really impress me; her Elizabeth is subject to illogical rages and bouts of hysterical crying (both of which the real Elizabeth probably also succumbed to). Clearly, they wanted to show Elizabeth the steely monarch and Elizabeth the woman. But I don't really care that much about Elizabeth the woman. I think it's boring. The fact is, she had to sacrifice her womanhood in the interest of the state and this can be showed without all the hysterical crying; Judi Dench's portrayal of Elizabeth in Shakespeare in Love now seems to have been just right. She played it at just the right pitch; there isn't even a hint that she feels sorry for herself because of lost loves.
I think in this case the mini-series may have been hurt by its adherence to historical fact. English historian Jasper Ridley wrote, "There must have been something about Elizabeth which won them over but which we cannot easily grasp today - her charm, her courage, her charisma, her magic - which fascinated her subjects and their descendants for twelve generations." I think this is true, and in that sense Helen Mirren's Elizabeth is a success because I found the character very unlikeable, probably because of her realism. She didn't line up with my idealized notions of Elizabeth the legendary monarch. And to be fair, for all its historical accuracy, the producers laid the love story arc on pretty thick. There's no evidence to suggest Elizabeth and the Earl of Essex were lovers or even came close; she probably had more sentimental admiration for him as Leicester's stepson.
Ultimately, this HBO production is not bad but at almost 4 hours it drags quite a bit and I would say that unless you have some kind of academic interest in the history of Elizabethan England, you might want to pass on it.
Last edited:
