Elizabeth is a 1998 'historical' drama portraying the rise of one of history's most notable women, Queen Elizabeth of England. The film first portrays her as a princess who lives out on the countryside before delving into the first few years as the new queen after the death of Mary. It focuses primarily on the perils she faced, both at home and abroad. Directed by Shekhar Kapur and starring the likes of Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, and Joseph Fiennes, the movie was a huge success at the box office as well as with the critics. It was not only nominated, but also won, several Oscars. After watching it myself, I can see why it was as lauded as it was since it was a very well done film. However, how does it fair in historical accuracy?
Well yes and no. Elizabeth's portrayal as a foil to her half-sister's religious authoritarian-style rule is spot on, especially when recounting the film's gruesome opening. The large-scale opposition of opposition from the Pope is also fairly accurate. The film even mentions England's poor fiscal and military status at the beginning of her reign, nicely done. In spite of all this, the film takes several liberties, both large and small. The death of Mary of Guise at the hand of Walsingham is one such instance, but by far the biggest is the portrayal of Robert Dudley. The move opens with a seemingly accurate depiction of just how close he was to the Queen. The cracks begin to show when Elizabeth discovers Dudley is married, which is a shock to her. In reality she knew of the marriage before she was even Queen. The film takes it even further by having Dudley become involved in a plot to betray Elizabeth. This is quite literally the exact opposite of how their relationship actually was. It is a well-known historical fact that the two remained close friends until his death which devastated her. To go over all of them would be an essay in itself, but simply put the film clearly had no intention of sticking to what actually happened. It is almost insulting to call it a 'historical biography' since it is more of a historical fantasy. All that being said, the movie is still spectacular in all other regards. The acting and cinematography are breath taking, and the score by David Hirschfelder is just timeless. It captures many emotions, from terror to pure magnificence.
Well yes and no. Elizabeth's portrayal as a foil to her half-sister's religious authoritarian-style rule is spot on, especially when recounting the film's gruesome opening. The large-scale opposition of opposition from the Pope is also fairly accurate. The film even mentions England's poor fiscal and military status at the beginning of her reign, nicely done. In spite of all this, the film takes several liberties, both large and small. The death of Mary of Guise at the hand of Walsingham is one such instance, but by far the biggest is the portrayal of Robert Dudley. The move opens with a seemingly accurate depiction of just how close he was to the Queen. The cracks begin to show when Elizabeth discovers Dudley is married, which is a shock to her. In reality she knew of the marriage before she was even Queen. The film takes it even further by having Dudley become involved in a plot to betray Elizabeth. This is quite literally the exact opposite of how their relationship actually was. It is a well-known historical fact that the two remained close friends until his death which devastated her. To go over all of them would be an essay in itself, but simply put the film clearly had no intention of sticking to what actually happened. It is almost insulting to call it a 'historical biography' since it is more of a historical fantasy. All that being said, the movie is still spectacular in all other regards. The acting and cinematography are breath taking, and the score by David Hirschfelder is just timeless. It captures many emotions, from terror to pure magnificence.