Gunpowder, Treason & Plot

Another entry in the revisionist-history-as-told-with-human-body-fluids school of European melodrama. Whereas "Elizabeth" showed the execution of the queen's enemies as a recreation of "The Godfather"'s wedding-cum-massacre scene, this anachronistic masterpiece revels in outdoing Quentin Tarantino in execrable behaviour, gratuitous gore, meaninglessness and sexual perversion. Not even enjoyable as sadistic pornography, this portrayal of James VI of Scotland (James I of England) as an R-rated video game Richard III will give you nightmares and the heaves. O times, O mores! I wonder how these films and mini-series ("Vatel", "The Affair of the Necklace", "Le Roi danse", "Saint-Cyr", etc.) get written. Do producers lure satanic literary failures with delusions of artistic misogyny and misanthropy and lock them up in unholy writing workshops, with promises of money and drugs, until someone comes up with a suitably repulsive script? Whatever the method for this madness, it works, the plays get produced and they make money. Some people even like them.

You know there is something fundamentally flawed with this "historical" production when the list of stuntmen is longer than the list of speaking parts and the songs on the soundtrack are in Romanian...

You'd think that combining a good director, excellent actors and fascinating

historical events would make for an entertaining miniseries -- but you'd be

wrong. The writing stank, the history was worse than inaccurate, and I can

barely believe excellent actors such as McKidd and Carlyle were able to deliver some of their lines with a straight face. Historical inaccuracies aside, the story itself was delivered so disjointedly it was downright choppy -- almost as if an entirely different director and writer made each half. Skip this one.

I saw this on Tubi in the US, in an apparently much edited version, as one long movie. Other reviews talk about the prevalent sex & blood in it, that must have been cut out for this version. I suspect the original had a choppy look to it anyway, but the result not only reduced any shock value but made it even choppier or more "modern" per 2004. The director seemed to want to do things differently than a standard history. Variations that could make a Brit angry matters less to a broader audience.

Part one featured Mary Queen of Scots taking over in Scotland 1561. The sets were disappointing but it should be noted that IRL, MQS was less than thrilled with her Scottish royal accommodations after her raising in France. Characters were believable. Complaints about actor accents in period pieces are easy to set aside because IRL English royals mostly used French anyway.

This part had very little to do with the main half, except to take the story straight to the grown-up version of what MQS worked so hard to create, James 6+1, first king of combined Brits.

Part two has a new cast and shows religious strife around 1605. Minor characters make their cases straight to the camera, relieving us of time spent with their backstories... I'll take this exposition method. We learn the events creating the Guy Faukes UK holiday. As for the odd title: "English Folk Verse: Remember, remember!

The fifth of November, The Gunpowder treason and plot; I know of no reason Why the Gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot!"

Given the pronounced anti-Catholic bias of most contemporary English history, one might think that any attempt to redress the balance might be welcomed. Alas, Jimmy McGovern's drama, 'Gunpowder, Treason and Plot', proves this not to be the case. Its greatest problem is its unfortunate tendency to encapsulate complex political issues in slogans, and those slogans, in turn, in characters - the portrayal of John Knox (who does little more than storm about and utter his most famous quote) exemplifies this. This, and the number of historical liberties taken (James I, for example, discovers the Gunpowder Plot in person) make the story a less accurate guide to the past than even 'Braveheart'.

The series is not helped either by some substandard acting. Clemence Posey, with her bizarre French-American-Scottish accent, is mostly inaudible as Mary Queen of Scots and seems to take most of the cues for her performance from Mila Jovovitch's disastrous turn as Joan of Arc in 'Messenger'. Sira Stampe is robotic as James I's wife, while Robert Carlyle's James is as unconvincing as he is unhinged. Also detracting from our enjoyment are the understaffed battle scenes, the histrionic tone, and a decidedly anachronistic portrayal of sexuality.

Surprisingly, given McGovern's own politics, there's almost no hint of republicanism here, although within a few decades Britain was engulfed by a civil war that disputed absolutely the relevance of monarchy: perhaps this is ignored because it was a Protestant rebellion. Instead, we get a boring, linear drama of good queen Mary, bad queen Elisabeth and mad king James. I'm still certain that somewhere, behind the propaganda, there's an interesting story - how did hatred of Catholocism spread so rapidly when only a handful of years previously, everyone in England was Catholic? But this film does little to open one's eyes.

I found This show Very entertaining, both episodes kept my attention. I liked How James VI Scotland was portrayed in this, as he wasn't a very pleasant man. Anne of Denmark was quite an interesting character in this. Guy Fawkes character at times can sometimes over shadow the man behind November 5th Robert Catesby. Maybe Catesby night would not of seemed to have the same ring to it if used, who knows.