The Virgin Queen

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 aging effects were MAGNIFICENT!! While the women seemed overly done and looked like something out of Star Wars or Star Trek, the white make up they used to cover the aging had the adverse effect of aging them further. 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. Every film or television show has it's merits and downfalls, but the visual brilliance should never be overshadowed.

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.

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.

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!

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?