History Goes to the Movies:

Elizabeth: The Glitzy Outrage.

"There is no drama like the drama of history."
— C.L.R. James (1963)

By Ron Fritze
October 15, 2007

Friday night my wife and I went to see Elizabeth: The Golden Age. We had already seen the earlier film Elizabeth (1998), so my expectations for historical accuracy from the sequel were low. Despite my not expecting much this time round, the film-makers managed to deliver even less.

Let me hold up on the historical accuracy issue for a moment, and say this about the movie: If you're looking for a costume drama (with some of the costumes also being of dubious accuracy) with impressive cinematography and special effects, Elizabeth: The Golden Age will be a pretty good movie for you. Dramatically it is a bit disappointing — the plot is minimal and characterization is generally lacking. Simply as a movie, it is less satisfying than its predecessor, but don't let my historical gripes stop you from going. Just don't expect to learn anything much factual about the reign of Elizabeth.

A Mugging of Poor Clio.

What about that history? Unfortunately poor Clio, the muse of history, got mugged badly by William Nicholson's and Michael Hirst's screenplay. The opening in the year 1585 sets the tone with a series of dubious statements about the historical setting. Spain is touted as the greatest empire in the world. Yes, Spain was a great empire — but on the world's stage, it had equals, if not superiors. The Ottoman Turks, for one, would have been surprised by the film's description of their western neighbor. While the Turkish Empire had already started its slow decline, it would be a drawn-out process that was just getting started. The Turks would remain a potent threat to Christian Europe for another century.

Then there was the Mogul Empire in India under Akbar — a great power in 1585 that would become even more powerful during the seventeenth century. Further east in China, the Ming dynasty ruled under the Wan Li Emperor, whose reign (1573-1620) fostered great cultural achievement.

Another opening statement from the creators of The Golden Age claims that England under its Protestant Queen Elizabeth stood alone against Spain. Not so. The people of the Netherlands had launched a rebellion against Spain in 1568 that would not be finally resolved until 1648. William the Silent, the great leader of the rebels, fell to an assassin's bullet on 10 July 1584 — the first ruler killed by a handgun. William's violent death is a dramatic story in its own right, but one that the film-makers ignore. I guess it is better to keep things simple — England vs. Spain, good vs. evil.

Realities Versus Fantasies.

Cate Blanchett makes a fine Galadriel of Lorien (Lord of the Rings, 2001). She also makes an equally fine younger Elizabeth. At 38 she's a little young for the Elizabeth of The Golden Age, which covers the years 1585-1588 (apparently). The real Elizabeth (b. 1534) was in her early fifties during 1585-1588. Apparently, the realities of the ageing process were of little concern to director Shekhar Kaptur.

One gratuitous scene of the queen in her bath chamber presents the audience with a view of Blanchett's bare butt. Yes, in our day and age of accomplished consumer science, many women in their fifties look that good or better, thanks to various combinations of vigorous exercise, healthy diet, liposuction, and plastic surgery. It is doubtful, however, that the real Elizabeth matched Blanchett's twenty-first century form — and I remain at a loss as to why the scene is even in the movie. Despite the jarring snippet of pointless nudity, it is obvious that Cate Blanchett acquired a good grasp of the character of Queen Elizabeth I, even if the screen-writers did not.

Geoffrey Rush reprises his role as Sir Francis Walsingham. In The Golden Age, the great spymaster is duped into forcing the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, which gives Philip II of Spain the pretext for attacking England. It is a common misconception that the Spanish Armada sailed to avenge the execution of Mary Queen of Scots. That is just not true. Mary's death freed Philip II to invade for another reason, one rooted in his quest for power. Philip knew that if his armada won the day, he would not have to put Mary on the throne of England. A member of the prominent French Guise family and the widow of a French king, Mary Queen of Scots was certain to be pro-French, not pro-Spanish. Philip II had no interest in strengthening the power of Spain's great Gallic rival to the north.

Stretching the Truth for Drama's Sake.

At the movie's end, an exhausted Walsingham dies. History records the date of his death as 6 April 1590. The movie makes it seem that Walsingham's last breath occurred right after the climatic sea-battle with the Spanish Armada, which took place on 29 July 1588.

Clive Owen plays a rather roughneck version of Sir Walter Ralegh. Now the fact is, people at court did make fun of Ralegh's pronounced West Country accent, which some people claim is the English regional accent most similar to a standard American accent. But the movie's focus on Ralegh during this period of Elizabethan history is just not factual.

It shows Ralegh gallantly putting his coat over a puddle for Queen Elizabeth to walk upon. He is depicted as a New World explorer and a pirate. In fact, the piracy came well after the four years covered by the film. It is like Ralegh and Sir Francis Drake are being conflated into a single personage.

What Do We Learn about Ralegh?

The film ever so lightly touches on Ralegh's American ventures, neglecting to mention the failed and mysterious colony of Roanoke. It completely ignores that he was heavily involved with the subjugation of Ireland during the years before the Spanish Armada. The film also depicts a close encounter of the romantic kind between Queen Elizabeth and Ralegh which has no foundation in history.

The Golden Age also portrays Ralegh's courtship of Bess Throckmorton, one of Elizabeth's maids of honor. Yes, Ralegh did get Bess pregnant and yes, they were secretly married, but those events took place in 1591, not during the crisis of the Armada. Queen Elizabeth put both husband and wife in prison when she found out about the secret marriage. It took her years to forgive him. She never forgave Bess, contrary to the film. Their baby Damerei did not survive.

Elizabeth's other great minister, William Cecil, is completely absent from the story — probably a function of the 1998 prequel's ill-advised casting of the cherubic but aged Sir Richard Attenborough as Cecil at the point in history when he was only in his early forties. Sir Francis Drake, normally a stock figure in films with Elizabethan settings, is given but a brief cameo.

Whose Guns Did the Peppering?

In the sea battle scenes, the English ships take a pounding from the guns of the Spanish Armada. History records otherwise. It was the English ships with their long-range guns that peppered the Spanish with lead. Another problem: the long-range canon did not possess enough punch to crack a ship's hull.

The Battle of Gravelines is shown to have occurred within sight of the English coast. It actually occurred within sight of the coast of present-day Belgium. In one melodramatic action sequence, Ralegh guides a fire ship against the anchored Spanish warships and barely escapes with his life at the last moment. In fact, Ralegh was probably not present at the fight with the Armada. He was most likely in the West Country on guard against a Spanish invasion of Ireland.

At the story's end, Elizabeth and England are victorious. The Golden Age makes the statement that in the aftermath of victory, England enjoyed peace and prosperity for the rest of Elizabeth's reign. In fact, the battle with the Armada was merely the first major episode in a long and draining war.

The Peace Came Later.

Despite its losses, Spain did not suffer a knockout blow. The war ground on for about fifteen more years. Elizabeth did not make the peace. It was only after her death in 1603 that her successor, James I, made peace with Spain in 1604.

The war brought hard times to England in the 1590s. Some years the weather was poor and crops were bad. Parts of England experienced famine — it was the last major food crisis in English history (but famously not in the history of the Irish). The war's disruption of trade and high taxes drove the economy into a depression.

Other armadas would threaten England after the summer of 1588, but none got as close to victory as did the first great Spanish Armada. In 1601, for instance, Spain invaded Ireland, but thanks to the skill of Charles Blount, Lord Mountjoy, the Spanish and the Irish rebels were decisively defeated. Other English successes were far more fleeting in their results. Some wonderful opportunities were lost. One has to ask, where's the gold?

The truly sad thing about both Elizabeth movies is that the screen-writers failed to heed the words of C. L. R. James: "There is no drama like the drama of history." I realize that by necessity, Hollywood must simplify storylines and reduce the number of characters in a great historical drama, but a closer adherence to the real events and the real people of Elizabeth's reign would have been just as dramatic, just as romantic, just as soap opera-ish — and a whole lot more satisfying.

Click on the black panther to read Ron Fritze's previous essay,
"The Road to Ayn Jalut"