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. 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?

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. This is the BBC's offering, better-funded, better-researched (or so it was claimed) and filmed in the UK instead of Eastern European locations. Sadly -- and I speak as a devotee of Aunty Beeb -- it simply isn't a match for Channel 4's earlier production "Elizabeth I". Not only is it not *as* good, by the end of the series it wasn't even *good*. (Too much attention paid to the technicalities of the ageing make-up on the principals and too little to the characterisation, perhaps?)

I think it simply tries to bite off more than it can chew. Channel 4 succeeded because they cast a middle-aged actress of great experience to portray Elizabeth in her later years. Anne-Marie Duff is a convincing wispy Princess, but her character doesn't seem to acquire the necessary gravitas as she supposedly ages. 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. Channel 4's rendition of the great Tilbury speech ("I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king -- and a King of England too") brought the hairs up to thrill at the back of my neck. 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. This is light-weight stuff, without the insight into character that would justify such liberties in the name of dramatic licence. I'll believe in Channel 4's adult version of the relationship between the greying Elizabeth and Leicester before I'll believe the aged-up immaturity shown here, between a couple who never seem to progress beyond teenage crushes and jealousies. We see little of the Queen, and a lot of the virgin -- more soap-opera than history.

Ambitious, but ultimately thin and unsatisfactory. All surface and no depth.

Don't get me wrong; the series itself I felt was well done and the script was decent. Some of the actors I felt weren't as strong as I would have preferred.

I think some people have already mentioned this but I will put my two cents in; Enough of Queen Bess! I have seen at least 4 different versions of Elizabeth I in the last 10 years. What is going on? There are other lesser known monarchs that need to have their stories told. Eleanor of Aquitaine? Edward II (openy gay English King who got a hot poker up his butt at the end of his life)? Richard III? War of the Roses? Come on Hollywood! If they want to stick to Tudor, how about they find something on Mary I or Edward VI (Bess' half siblings). I don't want to see another Henry VIII movie either. He did more than just have 6 wives, darn it!

The series itself was fine. Some of the historical things got screwed up but I try to ignore that. I'm a huge Tudor buff, so yes some of the sketchy things bugged me, but not enough to make me rant about it.

Summary: Put the Tudors to rest Please!

This is well plowed ground. For years the role of England's Elizabeth I was owned by Glenda Jackson. 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.

Glenda Jackson was too sour and too butch--attended by a fawning and effeminate Dudley. 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. Horrid is the only word to describe Ms. Mirren's appearance. The Cate Blanchett movie version tries to portray Elizabeth as a kind of early feminist--a concept that would not exist for many centuries. Dudley is squeezed into a tiny corner and hardly is a presence at all.

This production adopts as its center the long relationship between Elizabeth and Dudley. As "Robbie" Dudley, handsome, boyish Tom Hardy has swagger and sex appeal. He is not the least bit intimidated by his childhood playmate "Bess" now being the Queen. In one of this production's many telling moments, he is seen stroking the royal neck discreetly but not furtively even as Elizabeth receives the ambassador of the King of Spain. Agreed, Dudley seems to age little compared to Elizabeth, who gets older in appearance if not in demeanor. The relationship is accordingly more credible in the early parts of the series when both are in their twenties.

A few nitpicking pedants have pointed up some historical inaccuracies of a very minor nature. 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.

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. Keep up the good work!